Sea Ice Model Projections In A Death Spiral! Arctic Ice Volume Holds Steady For A Decade!

Arctic sea ice volume data show earlier projections of ice-free Arctic summers were a sham. Sea ice now steady 10 years.

Lately Arctic sea ice volume has been a topic which climate skeptics have been looking at quite closely.

According to Al Gore and a number of climate ambulance chasers, Arctic sea ice in late summer should have long disappeared by now, see here..

But then just a few years after, the Arctic sea ice area began to recover from its lows of 2007 and 2012. So immediately alarmists shouted that area was not really what mattered, but rather sea ice volume is what really counted. Okay, that made perfect sense. Mass is in fact what’s important, and not area, when worrying about polar ice disappearing.

So naturally skeptics have since then been watching volume, which we were told by alarmists would shrink, and shrink, and shrink – until totally gone in late summer. In 2007 one US climate official declared the Arctic sea ice was in a “death spiral”.

Those alarmist projections have since turned up totally false

First, looking at peak ice, which occurs around April 1st, using the data from the Danish meteorological Institute (DMI) here, we find that Arctic sea ice VOLUME has totally defied the downward death spiral trend projected by experts and their models.

The chart above depicts Arctic sea ice volume on April 1st for the years 2003 to 2018, using the data from the DMI. Note the growing chasm between alarmist projections and reality.

Humiliation of the alarmists

The most closely watched measure of Arctic sea ice magnitude is the minimum that is typically reached in very late summer, i.e. around September 20.

Here as well using the DMI data, I’ve plotted the September 20 Arctic sea ice going back to 2003.

Here’s the result of the plot:

Al Gore’s hysterical projections of ice-free Arctic late summers are exposed as an absolute sham. 2018 uses a conservative projected value.

Today the doomsday scenarios and projections made 10 years ago have yet to show any signs of materializing. Late summer Arctic sea ice has been surprisingly stable over the past decade.  Gore and alarmists fell into the trap of applying an idiotic polynomial curve extrapolation into the future.

In fact there are indications that Arctic sea ice may be starting an upward trend as oceanic and solar cycles enter their cooler phases.

Low sea ice also occurred in the past

There’s no doubt that Arctic sea ice has dwindled considerably since it peaked back at around 1980, a time when climate scientists had warned the globe risked cooling into an ice age.

Also, today’s Arctic sea ice amount is in the same neighborhood as it was back in the 1930s. Moreover, today’s levels are considerbly higher than they were over a large part of the Holocene, which saw periods that were far warmer than today.

67 responses to “Sea Ice Model Projections In A Death Spiral! Arctic Ice Volume Holds Steady For A Decade!”

  1. Steve

    I used to like lime flavoured Icey Poles.
    On a hot day, say 35 plus degrees they would dribble all over your hand if you didn’t eat fast enough. I guess the kids of tomorrow will just have to take them out of the fridge, rip the wrapper off, shove it in a glass and drink them quick before they evaporate.

    PS. I am guessing that regulars here likely think that I think that there is no such thing as AGW.

    1. StillaYankee

      What in the world are you smoking? Damn, man. Too many facts for you to comprehend?

      1. Steve

        Fact: currently it is warmer in the water at Bondi beach than it is in open air

        1. spike55

          Happens all the time at this time of year.

          Warm current sticks around, but the air is much cooler.

          Makes surfing fun, especially as we often get the best formed waves at this time of year. 🙂

        2. tom0mason

          Steve,
          A mass of warm water retains heat just a bit longer than atmosphere above it. Now can you figure out why?
          (Hint: Ain’t it strange how things don’t warm and cool at the same rate.)

  2. Dee

    The only sham here is you repeating an old myth. Al Gore never said the ice would be gone by 2013. He was quoting a NAVY study that presented the absolute worst case scenario while at the same time he pointed to more conservative estimates.

    What you fail to understand is that the rapid rate of melt should not be happening AT ALL! We should be cooling slightly now, not warming at an accelerated rate. The ice should be stable and/or growing, not melting on a global scale.

    Shame on you for perpetuated an easily debunked myth.

    https://truthout.org/articles/arctic-sea-ice-and-al-gores-prediction-2013/

    1. Kenneth Richard

      Al Gore (2009)
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsioIw4bvzI
      starting at 2:07
      “Some of the models suggest to Dr. Mazlowski there is a seventy-five percent chance that the entire North polarized cap during summer, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next 5 to 7 years.”

      What you fail to understand is that the rapid rate of melt should not be happening AT ALL!

      Dee, the sea ice melt in the Arctic is rooted in a 60-year oscillation tied to natural cycles. We had a similar nadir in the 1930s and 1940s before sea ice extent rose again in the 1950s to 1980s (see here and here and here too).

      In the Southern Hemisphere, the sea ice has been growing since 1979.

      There is no linear loss of ice for both hemispheres that looks similar to the trend in human emissions.

      And on a long-term basis, Arctic sea ice is more extensive now than it has been for most of the last 10,000 years, as shown in the following graphs:

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Arctic-Sea-Ice-Holocene-Stein-17.jpg

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Holocene-Arctic-Sea-Ice-Iceland-North-Perner-2018.jpg

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Holocene-Arctic-Sea-Ice-Chukchi-Sea-Yamamoto-2017.jpg

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Arctic-Sea-Ice-Extent-North-of-Iceland-3000-Years-Moffa-S%C3%A1nchez-and-Hall-2017.jpg

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Holocene-Canadian-Arctic-Sea-Ice-Mudie-2005.jpg

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Arctic-Sea-Ice-Iceland-Since-MWP-1975-copy.jpg

      He was quoting a NAVY study that presented the absolute worst case scenario while at the same time he pointed to more conservative estimates.

      Please identify the instance in which Al Gore pointed to conservative estimates. This is the same man who predicted sea levels would rise by 20 feet.

      The ice should be stable and/or growing, not melting on a global scale.

      Dee, how much sea level rise equivalent from the Greenland ice sheet melt has occurred since 1900, or since 1993? I’m curious if you know the magnitude we’re talking about here. Because it’s 0.39 of a centimeter since 1993. Why do you think we should be alarmed about this, Dee?

      Since 1993, Greenland’s Ice Sheet Melt Has Added Just 0.39 Of A Centimeter To Global Sea Levels

      Shame on you for perpetuated an easily debunked myth.

      Do you actually believe you have “debunked” something here, Dee?

      1. SebastianH

        You are directly citing what Al Gore said and yet still claim that he „predicted“ something he did not? Wow …

        It‘s unfortunate that the timelines for noticeable change are so long in climate things. I guess only the invention of timetravel or waiting another 30 years can shut up the pseudoskeptics of today.

        1. Kenneth Richard

          It‘s unfortunate that the timelines for noticeable change are so long in climate things.

          Yes, unfortunate. When do you think the Southern Hemisphere might actually experience a net loss of sea ice, SebastianH…since it’s been growing for nearly 40 years while CO2 emissions have risen dramatically? When do you think the East Antarctic ice sheet might stop gaining mass and cooling…as it’s done for the last several decades while CO2 emissions have risen dramatically?

          When do you think the Greenland ice sheet might show a net warming trend…since there’s been no net warming in the last 80-90 years (and a cooling trend between the 1950s and 1980s just as CO2 emissions began rising dramatically)?

          When do you think all these predicted species extinctions due to climate change will occur…since we’ve only had one confirmed species extinction since 2000 (which wasn’t climate related)?

          When will the growth in land mass area be overtaken by sea level rise, since there is more land area above sea level now than there was in the 1980s?

          When will the Greenland ice sheet begin contributing more than the 0.39 of a cm of sea level rise equivalent (melt water) during the 1993-2010 period so that we can reach your predicted scary levels of sea level rise?

          In sum, when will all these catastrophes you believe in actually start happening, SebastianH?

          I guess only the invention of timetravel or waiting another 30 years can shut up the pseudoskeptics of today.

          Please tell us your predictions for 30 years from now. What will happen to sea levels? How many species will have gone extinct per year? How much warmer will it get? What will happen to the East Antarctic ice sheet? Do tell us what we skeptics will be “shut up” about.

          1. SebastianH

            Yes, unfortunate. When do you think the Southern Hemisphere might actually experience a net loss of sea ice, SebastianH…since it’s been growing for nearly 40

            Umm, why do you ignore those recent reports of the yearly ice mass loss in Antarctica?

            When do you think the East Antarctic ice sheet might stop gaining mass and cooling…as it’s done for the last several decades while CO2 emissions have risen dramatically?

            The mass gain of East Antarctica is negligibly compared to the ice loss of the rest of the continent.

            https://media.springernature.com/m685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-018-0179-y/MediaObjects/41586_2018_179_Fig2_HTML.jpg

            When do you think the Greenland ice sheet might show a net warming trend…since there’s been no net warming in the last 80-90 years (and a cooling trend between the 1950s and 1980s just as CO2 emissions began rising dramatically)?

            The Greenland ice sheet is losing mass rapidly as well.

            When will the Greenland ice sheet begin contributing more than the 0.39 of a cm of sea level rise equivalent (melt water) during the 1993-2010 period so that we can reach your predicted scary levels of sea level rise?

            The major part of sea level rise is still thermal expansion. (To counter thermal expansion you once posted a paper that claimed that this would not impact coastal regions because the water isn’t as deep there and thus less expansion … remember that nonsense?)

            The “predicted” level in what scenario? Do you know what the IPCC actually predicted? Did you know that their prediction might be a bit on the low side?

            https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/dec/04/experts-ipcc-underestimated-sea-level-rise

            or more recent:
            https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2018/06/15/is-the-ipcc-wrong-about-sea-level-rise/#5608ed7d3ba0

            In sum, when will all these catastrophes you believe in actually start happening, SebastianH?

            What catastrophies am I believing in Kenneth? Enlighten me! You accused me of making up what you think, so why do make up what I might think then?

            Please tell us your predictions for 30 years from now.

            Sea level rise will accelerate further, ice mass in Greenland as well as Antarctica will decrease further, temperatures will increase further, heat content will increase further, CO2 concentration will increase further in tandem to human CO2 emissions.

            The split that has began between what should naturally have happened to climate without human envolvement and what actually happens will become larger. So large that only the craziest skeptics will still claim that it is all a hoax. None of the skeptic’s theories based on curve fitting “predictions” of past periodicies will become reality.

            Unfortunately the realisation of this will take a lot of time, especially with stubborn people who believe in this hoax theme.

          2. Kenneth Richard

            Yes, unfortunate. When do you think the Southern Hemisphere might actually experience a net loss of sea ice, SebastianH…since it’s been growing for nearly 40

            Umm, why do you ignore those recent reports of the yearly ice mass loss in Antarctica?

            I asked about sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere, and why it’s been growing for nearly 40 years. And you reply by writing about “yearly ice mass loss” on the continent of Antarctica?!

            The Greenland ice sheet is losing mass rapidly as well.

            Yes, so much so that it’s contributed a whopping 1.5 cm to sea levels since 1900. Do you find that contribution significant, SebastianH?

            The mass gain of East Antarctica is negligibly compared to the ice loss of the rest of the continent.

            East Antarctica makes up 75% of the continent. And it’s been cooling and gaining mass for decades. Can you explain why? And to what extent does CO2 melt the ice sheet on the West side of the continent relative to the high geothermal heat flux/active volcanic activity underneath the ice sheet?

            What catastrophies am I believing in Kenneth? Enlighten me!

            OK. You just wrote above:

            Do you know what the IPCC actually predicted?

            Yes. In 2013, the IPCC predicted 0.74 m of rise by 2100, which will “threaten the survival of coastal cities and entire island nations” according to RealClimate.org – rather catastrophic already.

            Did you know that their prediction might be a bit on the low side?

            So I take it you believe that we’ll get more like a meter or more by 2100. Can I assume you find that kind of rise to be catastrophic? Or would 1 meter of sea level rise not be catastrophic?

            Here are some other examples of your catastrophic beliefs.

            http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/16/recent-co2-climate-sensitivity-estimates-continue-trending-towards-zero/#comment-1232607
            SebastianH: “Regarding extinction of species, why do you think 30,000 species lost per year is a big number? We are already at or over that rate.”

            http://notrickszone.com/2018/01/04/485-scientific-papers-published-in-2017-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/#comment-1246210
            SebastianH: “They [marine species] might be able to adapt, but not at the speed acidification is happening.”

            Desertification. roflmao…. satellites show the opposite happening [greening].

            SebastianH: “[C]an you please point to the satellite data that shows what you claim is true? I can only find data for increasing desertification.”

            SebastianH: “Data suggest that quality of food is decreasing if you don’t take special care of a plant in a high CO2 level world.”

          3. spike55

            The Guardian and Forbes are NOT scientific references , seb

            Your first graph shows the effects of volcanic activity on West Antarctic.. You aren’t to blame that on human CO2 are you.

            That would be just IDIOTIC

            You can’t blame it on “warming” because there hasn’t been any, been COOLING in the Antarctic, y’know.

            And you can’t blame it on ocean warming by CO2, because that is not possible, as you well know.

            There is absolutely ZERO SCIENCE that links the very slight loss of mass from West Antarctic to ANYTHING of human origin.

          4. SebastianH

            I asked about sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere, and why it’s been growing for nearly 40 years. And you reply by writing about “yearly ice mass loss” on the continent of Antarctica?!

            My bad. But why the obsession with sea ice? Because it’s growing? By how much is it growing? Seems to be pretty stable to me …

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:1979/to:2018/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:1979/to:2018/trend

            Growing at one third the rate the sea ice in the NH is shrinking.

            Yes, so much so that it’s contributed a whopping 1.5 cm to sea levels since 1900. Do you find that contribution significant, SebastianH?

            I am sure if it were growing in mass you would even celebrate a single mm that it took away from the sea level. Similar to when you claimed that this would be the case for Antarctica. Remember? You claimed that Antarctica is gaining mass an is actually slowing down sea level rise. If only this blog had a better search function …

            East Antarctica makes up 75% of the continent. And it’s been cooling and gaining mass for decades. Can you explain why?

            I don’t need to, I just correct you guys when you put out false claims. Antarctica is not gaining ice mass. Not at all.

            Yes. In 2013, the IPCC predicted 0.74 m of rise by 2100, which will “threaten the survival of coastal cities and entire island nations” according to RealClimate.org – rather catastrophic already.

            Oh, you finally view this small increase in sea level as catastrophic? Congratulations then! I thought you wanted to hear something about 30+ m rises again and 15°C temperature increases …

            So I take it you believe that we’ll get more like a meter or more by 2100. Can I assume you find that kind of rise to be catastrophic? Or would 1 meter of sea level rise not be catastrophic?

            I don’t believe in anything Kenneth. Some day you will hopefully realize that. Projecting your own belief system on others and expecting that their minds work similar doesn’t work. Anyway, one meter of SLR is surely a problem. I wouldn’t say that it is catastrophic though when it happens over the course of 100 years. I am sure we will adapt, but it will cost us. I am sure you are aware of the studies about the economic costs of such a thing happening, right?

            Here are some other examples of your catastrophic beliefs.

            How are these catastrophic beliefs? In your words: I just repeated what was written elsewhere (and I showed you where many times now).

            I should compile a list of stuff you write too … and repeat it for you everytime you act like this.

            @Spikey:

            You can’t blame it on “warming” because there hasn’t been any, been COOLING in the Antarctic, y’know.

            https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1671
            West Antarctica is warming … don’t lie.

          5. Kenneth Richard

            My bad. But why the obsession with sea ice?

            In what way am I “obsessed” with sea ice by asking a question about it? That’s what this article is about, isn’t it?

            Because it’s growing? By how much is it growing? Seems to be pretty stable to me …

            So then why has SH sea ice been “stable”, then? Why hasn’t it declined? Why have the models been so wrong? For that matter, during 1945 to 1985, Arctic sea ice grew as Antarctic sea ice declined. After the 1980s, they switched courses. How does this oscillatory behavior fall in line with linearly increasing CO2 emissions?

            You claimed that Antarctica is gaining mass an is actually slowing down sea level rise.

            You’ve misrepresented what I wrote again. That wasn’t my claim. It was NASA’s Dr. Zwally’s claim. You knew that, and yet you misrepresented what I wrote anyway by characterizing it as my claim. Will this ever stop?

            https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
            The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said.

            East Antarctica makes up 75% of the continent. And it’s been cooling and gaining mass for decades. Can you explain why?

            I don’t need to

            Of course you don’t need to. You are welcome to continue avoiding answering the question.

            one meter of SLR is surely a problem. I wouldn’t say that it is catastrophic though when it happens over the course of 100 years.

            So you disagree with those who write things like “a rise of just one meter would render at least 100 million coast dwellers homeless“, as I presume you don’t think we’ll get 100 million homeless people because we’ll adapt? How many million homeless people are needed for you to agree that it’s catastrophic rather than just “problematic”?

            I am sure you are aware of the studies about the economic costs of such a thing happening, right?

            Oh, so are the economic costs just “problematic” too? What about for poorer countries?

            How are these catastrophic beliefs?

            OK, so you don’t think 30,000 species extinctions per year is catastrophic. What is the number of species extinctions per year that you have in mind that would be catastrophic?

            Do you think oceans turning to acid is only “problematic”, then? What’s the acidification threshold for problematic vs. catastrophic?

          6. spike55

            “West Antarctica is warming … don’t lie.”

            ROFLMAO.

            You present a temperature record at a human habitat to call me a incorrect ?????

            Your DECEIT and attempted DECEPTION continues unabated.

            The Antarctic is COOLING

            https://s19.postimg.cc/yubej7oyr/ant-ta-monthly-1979-2016-11-01.gif

            https://s19.postimg.cc/3mql5f783/Antarctic-_Stenni-17-_West-_Antarctic.jpg

            Stop your LIES and DECEIT, seb

            And it is noted BY EVERYONE, that you yet again RUN AWAY from any mention of PROOF of human cause.

          7. spike55

            And as we all know, Southern Sea surface temperatures are also dropping

            http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/14-southern-ssta.png

            As I said,

            No sign of ANY HUMAN INFLUENCE on anything or anywhere in the Antarctic

            (except at the couple of small stations down there, which bring their own heat with them)

          8. SebastianH

            In what way am I “obsessed” with sea ice by asking a question about it? That’s what this article is about, isn’t it?

            The article is about the Arctic.

            For that matter, during 1945 to 1985, Arctic sea ice grew as Antarctic sea ice declined. After the 1980s, they switched courses.

            Remember that Connolly 2017 paper you posted once? About Arctic sea ice reconstruction? Well, I do …
            https://imgur.com/a/tfoSK3F

            Doesn’t look like that is what happened. The Arctic looks stable in that timespan and way before. Can’t find any reconstructions of Antarctic sea ice, so maybe you are partly right.

            How does this oscillatory behavior fall in line with linearly increasing CO2 emissions?

            By now you must know that an increase of the heat content due to CO2 is not distributed evenly around the planet. So this is a rather strange question. It almost sounds like you expect the planet to warm uniformly if it wouldn’t be a hoax that more CO2 causes warming. But no, I don’t know what you think … so what do you think? That regional cooling isn’t possible in a warming world?

            You claimed that Antarctica is gaining mass an is actually slowing down sea level rise.

            You’ve misrepresented what I wrote again. That wasn’t my claim. It was NASA’s Dr. Zwally’s claim. You knew that, and yet you misrepresented what I wrote anyway by characterizing it as my claim. Will this ever stop?

            I think you used another paper for this claim (Thomas et al., 2017) and only mentioned the weird Zwally paper as support material.

            From this comment following some quotes of you:

            Apparently you believe a net reduction in sea level from the net change in SMB means that there was an overall decrease/loss of ice. That’s not how it works, of course. An ice sheet that loses mass does not reduce sea water equivalent or remove water from sea levels. Mass losses add to or raise sea levels. If you don’t agree, please provide an example from the scientific literature where sea level reductions were concomitant with ice sheet mass losses.

            Dr. Zwally and colleagues (2015) concluded that the gains in East Antarctica exceeded the losses in West Antarctica, leading to net surface mass gain for the 1992-2008 period. Again, a mass gain means that water has been removed from sea levels — not added to them.

            Nope, you still don’t understand that a removal of water from sea level rise due to ice sheet changes means that there was a net mass gain. Oh well. I tried to educate you.

            So you link to these papers (misrepresenting the Thomas paper) and write about how there is a mass gain when the sea level is reduced and yet that is not what you claim to be happening? Strange.

            Since you still apparently believe that a reduction in sea levels is not equivalent to a mass gain in the ice sheet per the m.w.e value, but instead a mass loss, here are a few more papers that clearly connect mass gains to sea level reductions.

            Somehow you got stuck there and assumed that there is a sea level reduction and everything else would follow from this new “fact”.

            I’m talking about overall mass gains vs. overall mass loss for the ice sheet or glacier…as represented by the contribution to sea level change.

            This gem … before you reply here that you are just quoting papers/authors.

            Or this one:

            And, again, you still apparently believe — without any scientific backing — that a net change in ice sheet mass that leads to a reduction in sea level means that there was a net loss in mass rather than a net gain.

            Still convinced the ice mass in Antarctica is growing you try to make it appear as if I would think that a sea level reduction means that there was a net loss. You made whatever the author wrote your own and tried to “educate” me on it. And now you say that this is not your claim? Well …

            How many million homeless people are needed for you to agree that it’s catastrophic rather than just “problematic”?

            Huh? The problematic part is that a rising sea level incurs costs. You should be well aware of the studies on this topic. Poorer countries might have a hard time, but we are talking about 1m MAX in 2100 … I am sure they moved past current western economic wealth by then. Perhabs you should watch the excellent videos of and from Hans Rosling on this topic: https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen

            Do you think oceans turning to acid is only “problematic”, then?

            To acid? What?

          9. Kenneth Richard

            The article is about the Arctic.

            So then why are you writing about the SMB in Antarctica?

            For that matter, during 1945 to 1985, Arctic sea ice grew as Antarctic sea ice declined. After the 1980s, they switched courses.

            Remember that Connolly 2017 paper you posted once? About Arctic sea ice reconstruction? Well, I do. Doesn’t look like that’s [Arctic sea ice grew between the 1940s and 1980s] what happened.

            So why are you again purposely misrepresenting what the authors of that paper actually wrote? Or are you just eyeballing graphs and concocting your own interpretations again?

            “According to this new dataset, the recent period of Arctic sea ice retreat since the 1970s followed a period of sea ice growth after the mid 1940s, which in turn followed a period of sea ice retreat after the 1910s. Our reconstructions agree with previous studies that have noted a general decrease in Arctic sea ice extent (for all four seasons) since the start of the satellite era (1979). However, the timing of the start of the satellite era is unfortunate in that it coincided with the end of several decades during which Arctic sea ice extent was generally increasing.”

            Gagné et al., 2017
            “Updated observational datasets without climatological infilling show that there was an increase in sea ice concentration in the Eastern Arctic between 1950 and 1975, contrary to earlier climatology in-filled observational datasets that show weak inter-annual variations during that time period.”

            Can’t find any reconstructions of Antarctic sea ice, so maybe you are partly right.

            It’s in the IPCC reports, SebastianH. Antarctica warmed during the 1950s to 1970s. It’s been cooling since. This is the opposite of what the models say should happen. Why have they been so wrong?

            http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=593
            “Analysis of whaling records and modeling studies indicate that Antarctic sea ice retreated south by 2.8 degrees of latitude between the mid-1950s and the early 1970s.”


            http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=599
            “Another analysis of a 21-station data set from Antarctica by Comiso (1999) found a warming trend equivalent to 1.25°C per century for a 45-year record beginning in the 1950s but a slight cooling trend from 1979 to 1998. The slight cooling trend for this later 20-year period also was confirmed via analysis of surface temperatures over the whole continent, as inferred from satellite data.”

            http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/cdeser/docs/fan.antarctic_seaice_trends.grl14.pdf
            “This study compares the distribution of surface climate trends over the Southern Ocean in austral summer between 1979–2011 and 1950–1978, using a wide variety of data sets including uninterpolated gridded marine archives, land station data, reanalysis, and satellite products. Apart from the Antarctic Peninsula and adjacent regions, sea surface temperatures and surface air temperatures decreased during 1979–2011, consistent with the expansion of Antarctic sea ice. In contrast, the Southern Ocean and coastal Antarctica warmed during 1950–1978.”

            Sea ice concentration (SIC) trends are generally consistent with the SST trends: that is, regions of increasing SIC are nearly always found in an environment of decreasing SST, and vice versa [warmer SSTs cause less SIC].”

            So you link to these papers (misrepresenting the Thomas paper) and write about how there is a mass gain when the sea level is reduced and yet that is not what you claim to be happening? Strange.

            I am unable to interpret this latest attempt at misrepresenting what I have actually written. Again, the Zwally analysis is that Antarctica is gaining mass on net and removing water (-0.23 mm/yr) from sea levels. This is specified in both the press release (NASA) and the paper itself.

            Still convinced the ice mass in Antarctica is growing you try to make it appear as if I would think that a sea level reduction means that there was a net loss.

            Again, when the conclusion is that there has been a net gain for an ice sheet (as Zwally et al. concluded), then the sea level equivalent is negative (water is removed from sea levels).

            https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
            Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
            “The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said.

            Huh? The problematic part is that a rising sea level incurs costs.

            So are you relieved that, on a global scale, more land area is above sea level today (2015) than in 1985 according to satellite observations? The problematic (non-catastrophic?) costs are not being realized! Good news, right? Or is this still problematic too?

            Do you think oceans turning to acid is only “problematic”, then?

            To acid? What?

            So have you stopped believing in ocean acidification, or are you still a believer? (You realize that “acidification” is the term preferred by your side, right?)

          10. SebastianH

            [You’re trolling. Please don’t abuse your commenting privileges here. You’re free to start your own forum, elsewhere. I’m not going to tolerate you hounding and trolling people just because they have a different opinion. – PG]

      2. SebastianH

        There is no linear loss of ice for both hemispheres that looks similar to the trend in human emissions.

        Do speed and acceleration look similar to you?
        https://imgur.com/a/RBSZJBa

        Or would you say – based on that graph – that they are unlikely connected because you can’t make out the “linear” relationship between those two variable?

        1. Kenneth Richard

          Do speed and acceleration look similar to you?

          Why are you refusing to respond to comment about SEA ICE? Oh. We understand.

          Does the sea ice gains in the Southern Hemisphere match the modeled projections for sea ice losses as CO2 rises? Why not?

          http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Sea-Ice-Extent-Southern-Hemisphere-Comiso-2017.jpg

          Do you detect a CO2 signal here either?

          http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Holocene-Arctic-Sea-Ice-North-Iceland-Ran-2010.jpg

          http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Holocene-Cooling-Greenland-SW-Kryk-2017.jpg

          http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Holocene-Arctic-Sea-Ice-Beaufort-Sea-Durantou-2012.jpg

          1. SebastianH

            Why are you refusing to respond to comment about SEA ICE? Oh. We understand.

            I am not sure you do. This is a reply to a reply of yours to someone else. I don’t need to respond to everything you write in one comment. If that is a requirement then please make sure you uphold that in your own replies. Apparently you left out an answer to my question that was direct at you specifically.

          2. spike55

            Seb

            You accusing people of leaving out answers to questions is IRONIC to say the least, down-right HILARIOUS, actually.

            Q1 In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years that are scientifically attributable to human activity ?

            Q2. Do you have ANY EVIDENCE that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

          3. SebastianH

            Spikey, I am not accusing anyone, Kenneth is. You should really improve your reading skills or are you trolling again? And do you think repeating already answered questions over and over is something that impresses anyone? I am sure you are trying to show your “buddies” that because this one guy can’t be bothered to jump through your hoops, your wild fantasies must be the correct ones or something like that. Am I on the right path? Do you think it works this way?

          4. spike55

            Your headless chook routine, running around avoiding answering simple questions is noted,
            yet again .. BY EVERYONE

            Thanks for helping SO MUCH to destroy this AGW nonsense.

            Your input is invaluable 🙂

          5. spike55

            What it really shows, seb is that you have ABSOLUTELY NO ANSWER when asked to back up the nonsense claim of CO2 warming.

            The FACT is that you are too dumb to realise JUST HOW STUPID YOU LOOK as you continue to squirm and squeel your way around avoiding answering.

            It doesn’t need to impress anyone.

            It just needs to highlights your total inability to support even the most basic argument of the AGW scam.

            Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human activity ?

            Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

        2. spike55

          Yet another low-end juvenile attempt at maths from seb

          Great illustration of your junior high level education, seb 🙂

        3. Robert Folkerts

          Seb says 11 July

          I don’t believe in anything Kenneth. Some day you will hopefully realize [sic] that.

          SebastianH 11. June 2018 at 5:11 PM | Permalink

          I am an atheist.

          Seb, are you a “positive” atheist, or a “negative” atheist?

          The positive one believes something, the other is sometimes named the “weak atheist”.

          Interested to know which title you would claim for yourself?

          1. SebastianH

            [-snip, trolling]

    2. spike55

      “What you fail to understand is that the rapid rate of melt should not be happening AT ALL”

      roflmao

      Dee, the late 1970s was a time of extreme high sea ice, Up there with that of the LIA cold anomaly.

      Even now the current sea ice extent is still in the top 10% of the last 10,000 years (as shown but k’s graphs.

      What do you expect to happen after the COLDEST period in 10,000year..

      Do you expect it NOT to warm up?

      It seems that your problem is that you ae totally lacking any real knowledge of the situation and are only basing your comments on what the newspapers and AGW apostles feed you.

      The word for that is GULLIBLE.

    3. Steve

      An Inconvenient Truth is the worst doco I have ever seen.

  3. Yonason (from a friend's comp)
  4. SebastianH

    According to Al Gore and a number of climate ambulance chasers, Arctic sea ice in late summer should have long disappeared by now.

    Al Gore cited a scientists who said this could be the case. We should rather focus on that ice age you have predicted in 2008 that is to arrive any time now. Why is the anomaly not at -2.x °C yet?

    But then just a few years after, the Arctic sea ice area began to recover from its lows of 2007 and 2012. So immediately alarmists shouted that area was not really what mattered, but rather sea ice volume is what really counted.

    What are you talking about? 2007 and 2012 were extreme years. The area/extent is still perfectly on the trendline of the recent decades. Besides, the whole “the Arctic will be ice free” thing is in regards to extent and means that the extent in summer months will be below 1 million square kilometers some day. It has nothing to do with volume. For all it matters there could be a single 5m high ice cube with a volume of 5.000 km³ and an area of 1 million km² floating at the pole and the Arctic would still technically be “ice free” according to the definition that is generally used.

    First, looking at peak ice, which occurs around April 1st

    Have you even looked at the data? In what year is peak ice “around April 1st”? It’s always at the beginning of May or the end of April.

    The most closely watched measure of Arctic sea ice magnitude is the minimum that is typically reached in very late summer, i.e. around September 20.

    Same problem. In no year the minimum ice volume is around September 20th. It is always at the beginning of September or end of August. Are we looking at the same data?

    at around 1980, a time when climate scientists had warned the globe risked cooling into an ice age.

    A skeptic’s bubble myth.

    tl;dr: You need an editor or someone who can proofread your claims before you post them.

    1. spike55

      poor seb

      You really are having a hard time of it, aren’t you, petal.

      Thing is that your whole attitude makes you one of OUR BEST WEAPONS against the AGW scam on this forum.

      People look at your comments and LAUGH at their ridiculous arrogance and bizzare anti-science BS that you keep coming up with.

      They LAUGH at your manic evasions at producing any real evidence.

      They LAUGH at your juvenile, petulant, attention-seeking rants.

      Your base level far-left antagonism and total inability to even try to answer basic questions about CO2 warming makes you look like a rabid non-educated religious zealot.

      Look in the mirror, you will see a deep EMPTY soul looking back at you.

      You could alleviate that HILARITY at your childish zealot-like posts by telling us just where you stand on the scientific basis of human CO2 caused warming.

      Two simple questions seb.. why is it so hard ????

      Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human activity ?

      Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

    2. spike55

      “2007 and 2012 were extreme years”

      No seb

      the late 1970s was the EXTREME time

      anomalously high sea ice

      coldest period since the LIA in many NH regions.

      Why is it that you have so much trouble facing facts?

  5. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

    Bjorn Lomborg gets it, …sort of.

    While he mistakenly thinks there’s a human co2 caused warming, he is correct about what NOT to do about it.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Z_IC3xrgJk

    At least if we do what he suggests, and down the road we find there was no problem all along, we won’t have squandered precious resources, and maybe even will have learned some useful lessons to boot.

  6. James Eberle

    Total, absolute nonsense. When examining the long term trend line for ice volume at the annual minimum, it clearly shows a sustained decrease.

    This “debate” only exists because Republicans, whose function is to serve the entrepreneurs, can’t face GOVERNMENT REGULATION as one of the tools to address the issue of anthropogenic global warming. The two other legs of the mitigation triad are technology and geo-engineering. Should the day arrive when government regulation is no longer needed to address the issue, because the other two legs of the mitigation triad are sufficient, Republicans will quickly acknowledge global warming.

    1. Kenneth Richard

      Total, absolute nonsense. When examining the long term trend line for ice volume at the annual minimum, it clearly shows a sustained decrease.

      The “long-term” trend line for the Southern Hemisphere shows the sea ice growing in extent. How does this fit the narrative, James Eberle?

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Sea-Ice-Extent-Southern-Hemisphere-Comiso-2017.jpg

      In these Northern Hemisphere graphs of long-term sea ice extent, we see that the current sea ice “trend” is well above what it’s been for most of the last 10,000 years:

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Arctic-Sea-Ice-Holocene-Stein-17.jpg

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Holocene-Arctic-Sea-Ice-Iceland-North-Perner-2018.jpg

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Holocene-Arctic-Sea-Ice-Chukchi-Sea-Yamamoto-2017.jpg

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Arctic-Sea-Ice-Extent-North-of-Iceland-3000-Years-Moffa-S%C3%A1nchez-and-Hall-2017.jpg

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Holocene-Canadian-Arctic-Sea-Ice-Mudie-2005.jpg

      Can you explain these trends considering CO2 levels were only in the 260 ppm range when Arctic sea ice was much lower than now?

      This “debate” only exists because Republicans, whose function is to serve the entrepreneurs, can’t face GOVERNMENT REGULATION as one of the tools to address the issue of anthropogenic global warming.

      So this is a political debate, then? It’s not about the science? Sounds like you think this is an entrepreneurially-driven conspiracy. Are these entrepreneurs running the sea ice data sets that show a pause in the last 10+ years?

      Republicans will quickly acknowledge global warming.

      Why do ethnocentric U.S. citizens think only in terms of Republicans vs. Democrats in their country? This is a global issue, with far more than a single political party in the U.S. affecting the outcomes or conspiring to cook data with their entrepreneurs.

    2. spike55

      What do you call “long term”..

      Time to learn some sea ice history, James.

      Did you know that current levels of Arctic sea ice are in the top 10% of the last 10,000 years ??

      The “long term” is a HUGE DECREASE in sea ice.

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

      Of course , if you go even longer back into a major ice age, then yes , there is less sea ice than then

      Arctic sea ice, is really only just a bit down from that of the Little Ice Age

      Late 1970’s sea ice was the anomaly, being an extreme extent up with those of the LIA.

      https://s19.postimg.cc/bkgbf2prn/Icelandic_sea_ice_index_2.png

      So no, the long term is UP

      From the extreme high of the late 1970s , its down

      Since about 2006 its levelled off and shows indications of starting to climb.

      NSIDC has 9th July extent above every year back to 2006 except 2008, but 2008 was thin and sparse. 2018 has a great big chunk of thick sea ice that will be very hard to melt.

      DMI has the sea ice volume since 2003 with 2018 sitting right on the +1sd point.

      1. spike55

        “The “long term” is a HUGE DECREASE in sea ice.”

        WOW, I got that line wrong !!! roflmao….

        meant The “long term” is a HUGE INCREASE in sea ice.

        gotta stop posting before morning coffee. !!

    3. tom0mason

      James Eberle, I’ll agree it’s all “Total, absolute nonsense.”

      All of this blather about atmospheric CO2 levels only makes sense if it could be shown that CO2 (in the atmosphere) actually warms anything. To date there is no observations providing evidence of this happening (in the atmosphere).
      Of note is that as this planet exits the LIA (since 1850 or so) it should naturally warm (it’s the sun!). And any slowdown, or decrease in the loss of ice mass worldwide is a probable portend that the planet is slipping back to a colder climate scenario.

      So you’re correct the UN-IPCC (and it’s advocates) are pushing nothing but politics, as they do not show that any of the recent climate variations is either unusual or unnatural. In the main the planet’s climate is the chaotic outcome of a mix of solar cycles, ocean cycles, and geological changes. Evidence so far shows that the human influence is minor and transitory, CO2’s influence on the climate is even less so.

      Yep, it’s all just politics (ego, money, and power — go ask Al Gore!).

  7. spike55

    Arctic sea ice follows a known 6o or so year oscillation even visible during the LIA.

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

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

    The lower part of the oscillation can be approximated by a 2nd order curve.

    Applying this to the DMI volume data , we see what could actually be happening.

    https://s19.postimg.cc/i23g78137/DMI_vol_Jul9.png

    NSIDC has current sea ice extent above EVERY year since 2006, except 2008 (when it was much thinner)

    If this trend continues, it will be hilarious to watch the AGW cultists’ antics over then next few years, as sea ice continues to increase in both extent and area.

    At least the Russians are prepared.

    Our resident troll is already in a deep state of panic and desperation, and its hilarious to watch his posts as he KNOWS the scam is coming slowly to an end. 🙂

    1. SebastianH

      It will indeed be fun to get back to posts like these in the future … of course you‘ll never admit that you guys were wrong in 2018 (as wrong as in any slightly cooler year in the past). You can’t win an argument against this kind of stubbornness…

      1. spike55

        “You can’t win an argument against this kind of stubbornness…”

        Do you mean your headless chook routine in refusing to even try to answer two basic question about CO2?

        No seb, YOU cannot win an argument, not because of your stubbornmess..

        .. because you have NOTHING TO ARGUE WITH.

        Let’s see if you have got anything, shall we.

        Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years that is scientifically attributable to human activity ?

        Q2. Do you have ANY EVIDENCE that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

      2. MrZ

        Seb!
        You could actually change my mind if you clearly described how more CO2 actually causes a runaway warming. Three strong bullet points may do the trick.

        1. spike55

          “Three strong bullet points may do the trick.”

          Not just describing some bizarre anti-physics FANTASY mechanism, but actually provide some empirical evidence about that “mechanism™”.

          Seb has a wacky mind that warps known science and physics into non-reality, and comes up with all sort of imaginary erroneous nonsense and BS, none of which he is ever able to back up with any real science.

  8. Arctic Ice Volume Holds Steady For A Decade! | PSI Intl

    […] Read more at notrickszone.com […]

  9. Alarmists Claim ‘Global Heat Wave’ Is Melting Polar Bear Sea Ice – Facts Say Otherwise – Newsfeed – Hasslefree allsorts

    […] Ref.: http://notrickszone.com/2018/07/10/sea-ice-model-projections-in-a-death-spiral-arctic-ice-volume-hol… […]

  10. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

    Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse for warmists…
    http://www.newscats.org/?p=15602

    “Glaciologists have drilled and analysed many of today’s glaciers. They have been surprised to discover that, outside of Antarctica and Greenland, no glacial ice older than 4,000 years has been found. For example, the Fremont Glacier in Wyoming half-way towards the Equator is only a few hundred years old.

    Naturally some of these new glaciers can show melting and retreat during long spells of warm weather, but the mere existence of glaciers today where none existed at the peak of the Holocene warming over 3,000 years ago confirms what other studies show – Earth is gradually cooling towards the next Glacial Cycle.”

  11. dennisambler

    NASA – Arctic Meltdown February 27, 2001
    https://web.archive.org/web/20130111044639/http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=22250

    The Arctic ice cap is melting at a rate that could allow routine commercial shipping through the far north in a decade and open up new fisheries. But a report for the US Navy seen by New Scientist reveals that naval vessels will be unable to police these areas.

    Peter Wadhams of the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge (and Climate advisor to the Pope), agrees that the Arctic could soon open up. “Within a decade we can expect regular summer trade there,”he predicts.

    Global warming ‘past the point of no return’ 16 September 2005
    https://web.archive.org/web/20080508222839/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/global-warming-past-the-point-of-no-return-507030.html

    A record loss of sea ice in the Arctic this summer has convinced scientists that the northern hemisphere may have crossed a critical threshold beyond which the climate may never recover.

    Arctic to be ‘ice-free in summer’ David Shukman, Science and environment correspondent, BBC News, 14 October, 2009
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8307272.stm

    “The Arctic Ocean could be largely ice-free and open to shipping during the summer in as little as ten years’ time, a top polar specialist has said.
    “It’s like man is taking the lid off the northern part of the planet,” said Professor Peter Wadhams, from the University of Cambridge. Professor Wadhams has been studying the Arctic ice since the 1960s. He was speaking in central London at the launch of the findings of the Catlin Arctic Survey.”

    Is Arctic Sea Ice Rapidly Thinning? Greg Holloway, and Tessa Sou Institute of Ocean Sciences, Sidney BC, Canada

    The Arctic Climate System Study: Climate and Cryosphere Project Newsletter, Number 1, September 2001 Ice and Climate News

    “In the case of submarine-inferred rapid loss of Arctic sea ice, combined modelling and data argue that a more physically plausible inference is that the ice was not “lost” but only shifted within the Arctic. The pattern of submarine sampling happened to miss the shift. Observations to date, together with model physics, imply only that the loss of sea ice volume is not inconsistent with the 3% per decade loss of ice area, a modest rate, itself not inconsistent with multi-decadal natural variability.”

    Ice thickness in the Northwest Passage – Haas – 2015 – Geophysical Research Letters – Wiley Online Library

    “We present results of the first ever airborne electromagnetic ice thickness surveys over the NWP carried out in April and May 2011 and 2015 over first-year and multiyear ice. These show modal thicknesses between 1.8 and 2.0 m in all regions. Mean thicknesses over 3 m and thick, deformed ice were observed over some multiyear ice regimes shown to originate from the Arctic Ocean. Thick ice features more than 100 m wide and thicker than 4 m occurred frequently.
    Results indicate that even in today’s climate, ice conditions must still be considered severe.

    In the waters of the northern NWP, in 2014 more ice survived the summer as MYI than in the nine most recent years but slightly less than during 1968–2015 on average.

    Between November 2014 and April 2015, winter air temperatures were between −0.5°C and −1.5°C colder than during 1980–2010.

    …the observed thicknesses and amount of deformed ice still indicate serious ice conditions which can persist throughout the summers and provide ample potential for encounters with hazardous ice.

    In addition, we have observed two ice islands in and south of Byam-Martin Channel in 2011 which were not included in the present analysis. These ice islands originated from the ice shelves along the Arctic Ocean coast of Ellesmere Island, and were between 30 and 40 m thick, adding to the variability of hazardous ice features in the NWP.”

    Still the fraudulent claims of disappearing ice continue and MSM journalists do not want to report on the contrary evidence because it doesn’t support the main narrative to which they have all signed up.

  12. Bill Butler

    And in the world of reality . . .
    Arctic sea ice volume is in a death spiral.
    http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

    1. spike55

      Bill you are at least 10 years behind any REALITY

      Go back to sleep and put your brain on hold for another 10 years.

  13. Sea Ice Model Projections In A Death Spiral! Arctic Ice Volume Holds Steady For A Decade! | Un hobby...

    […] P. Gosselin, July 10, 2018 in […]

  14. spike55

    10th July. MASIE sea ice extent above every year since 2006 except 2008.

    NSIDC in 4th place since 2006, 3rd significant figure below 2009, 2015, and 2008 which was very thin and spread out

    DMI volume comparison with 2008 tells a very different story

    https://s19.postimg.cc/c69z3cnc3/DMI_2008_v2018.jpg

    1. MrZ

      Spike/Andy,
      It is clear that Artic is colder and melting slower than normal.
      Do you think it is because something is blocking warmth reaching there (currents and weather systems) or is the overall input lower (sunspots, clouds etc)?

      1. spike55

        Look at the temps in the North Atlantic, cooling fast, currents will not be quite as warm as the last several years.

        Also the winds seem to be holding the ice in, rather than allowing the flow of sea ice out through Fram Strait

  15. Yonason

    Here’s Dr. Fred Goldberg, climate scientist and polar expert for your listening and learning pleasure.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XEcnJFTxQcU

  16. Eliza

    I bet you anything Seb is an Australian paid AGW troller like Nick Stokes ect. Left that dump a long time ago, A country where you cant even breath air without been fined and whose governmenet is led by an absolute idiot who believes in AGW.

    1. spike55

      nah, he’s in Germany somewhere. But same situation.

      And no-one in their right mind would pay for his level of incompetence.

  17. Settled Sciences Require Accurate Models; Climate Science Has None – CO2 is Life

    […] Source […]

  18. Charles S. Opalek, PE

    Ponder this:

    The Arctic sea ice area on average is roughly about 10,000,000 km2, and its thickness on average is roughly about 2 km. This is equivalent to a sheet of paper 3 mils thick with an area of about 4 football fields.

    With all the air temperature changes and water inflows and outflows continuously experienced by the Arctic Ocean, it is a miracle this fragile film of ice doesn’t disappear over night.

    Relish the comparison.

    1. spike55

      “The Arctic sea ice area on average is roughly about 10,000,000 km2, and its thickness on average is roughly about 2 km. This is equivalent to a sheet of paper 3 mils thick with an area of about 4 football fields. “

      ?????????????????????????????????????

  19. Global Temperature Rise Some 75% Lower Than Models Projected!

    […] is not the only magnitude that global warming alarmists have totally exaggerated. Another example mentioned earlier is Arctic sea ice, which has been expanding over the past decade, i.e. doing the opposite of what […]

  20. Global Temperatures Rising Some 75% Less Than Models Projected! | PSI Intl

    […] is not the only magnitude that global warming alarmists have totally exaggerated. Another example mentioned earlier is Arctic sea ice, which has been expanding over the past decade, i.e. doing the opposite of what […]

Leave a Reply

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