Arctic Sea Ice Area Back To Normal! Dramatic Record Refreeze Wipes Out “Dramatic” Melt Of August!

Arctic sea ice extent today is, for all practical purposes, BACK TO NORMAL!

Arctic sea ice extent 15 Jan 13

Chart source:

That return to normal only means one thing. The “dramatic melt” of August 2012 had to have been reversed completely by an equally dramatic refreeze this winter. Unfortunately we’re not going to find any news stories about that in the media, are we? Ice and many other climate developments are only one-way dramatic for the warmists, i.e. only when it melts, and not when it refreezes.

“Oh! But hold on!” some of you out there may say. “It’s thickness (i.e. volume) that’s really important, and not area.”

Yes, that’s correct. But how come we never here the media talk about ice volume in August? In August, suddenly only area counts. Funny how they bring up volume only when ice refreezes and things are back to normal.

If you do look at volume (Antarctica and the Arctic), then there really is nothing to worry about. Global ice volume varies by only a few thousandths of a percent globally each year – even over decades. I discussed this once already not long ago HERE.

If you charted global ice volume (Arctic + Antarctica) over time, the thickness of the line would more than cover the decadal variations. But don’t hold your breath waiting for a warmist to show such a chart. You’ll never ever see it from them.


29 responses to “Arctic Sea Ice Area Back To Normal! Dramatic Record Refreeze Wipes Out “Dramatic” Melt Of August!”

  1. John Silver

    Global ice area is now back to the 1979-2008 mean. Look in the lower right corner here:

  2. John F. Hultquist

    If you look at the image for Arctic sea ice concentration here:

    You can see almost all the interior areas of the north are ice covered. Ice growth beyond this can happen only at the margins and that is more difficult. The lines on a chart like this

    . . . close on one another at this time of year. There is sort of a “soft” upper bound, meaning while theoretically it can continue to grow it physically won’t by much. Because ice insulates, after a certain thickness, volume mostly builds by piling up, not freezing underneath. By mid-March the lines separate as each year’s characteristics manifest themselves. So, if 2013 is to be interesting it will have to break out of the tangle of lines in a few weeks, either low or high, for otherwise it is just business as usual. The summer low-ice cover fluctuates more because ice loss is unconstrained, except at zero. Unlike ice growth that naturally slows, ice loss slows and recovers only when the season changes.

    Note the pattern year after year. In mid-May the ice cover for the years is, again, quite similar. Because the only time of the year when any of this can be considered “scary” is near the minimum. Thus, September is the only time when it will get anyone’s attention, and then only if it fits the “we are doomed” theme. If that doesn’t happen, expect it to be ignored then also.

  3. JC Smith

    So you’re saying that since we are at a record low for ice extent as of January 15th…….that is a good thing? Wow….I don’t quite follow your “logic” there.

    You ARE aware that the ice sheet will continue to “freeze back” in the winter for several more decades aren’t you? Of course, when it freezes back in the winter, it only has a single year of sea ice…..not multiple layers of ice like it used to have in the “good ole’ days” in the 1970’s and 1980’s. You did know that didn’t you?

    And then there is that “little issue” of ice volume. You see….not only are we at a record low ice extent for this time of the year…..we also are at multi-decade lows of ice VOLUME in the Arctic. You think that might be problem?

    1. John Silver

      No, no problem.

    2. John F. Hultquist

      Did you post on the right blog? Where and who says “we are at a record low for ice extent as of January 15th? Did you look at the graphs? They show that ice is not at a record low. And the word “good” seems to have been introduced by you. I must have missed something!

    3. DirkH

      JC Smith, CO2AGW science has been refuted, the theory has been rejected. Get over it. The models are the prediction of the theory, they failed. A theory whose predictions fail is rejected; that’s how science work. Any problem with that?

      1. Stephen C Johnson

        Would you be kind enough to give me a link to the paper that refutes the theory of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change. I have been looking through various peer reviewed scientific literature and cannot find it. This is very important because the scientist/ scientists who have done this should be able to claim the Nobel as well as other prizes for science research in short order.

        1. Aetheress

          I’ll try to keep these short-

          While all of the following scientists believe the globe is warming, the vast majority of them do NOT believe in the theory of “Anthropegenic” GW.

          Survey says-
          “Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis” 02-13-2013


          “We find that virtually all respondents (99.4%) agree that the climate is changing. However, there is considerable disagreement as to cause, consequences, and lines of action (as outlined in Figure 2). On this basis, we find five different frames, each of them summarized in Table 3. Eight percent of respondents did not provide enough information regarding their framing of climate change to be categorized. ”

          “The largest group of APEGA respondents (36%) draws on a frame that we label ‘comply with Kyoto’. In their diagnostic framing, they express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

          “The second largest group (24%) express a ‘nature is overwhelming’ frame. In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth. Their focus is on the past: ‘If you think about it, global warming is what brought us out of the Ice Age.’ Humans are too insignificant to have an impact on nature”

          “Fatalists’, a surprisingly large group (17%), diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are sceptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling: ‘The number of variables and their interrelationships are almost unlimited – if anyone thinks they have all the answers, they have failed to ask all of the questions.’ ”

          “Ten percent of respondents draw on an ‘economic responsibility’ frame. They diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable.”

          ” The last group (5%) expresses a frame we call ‘regulation activists’. This frame has the smallest number of adherents, expresses the most paradoxical framing, and yet is more agentic than ‘comply with Kyoto’. Advocates of this frame diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.”

          99.4% say that the climate is changing. No “climate change” deniers here. NONE.

          There IS NO CONSENSUS.

          “Only one in four Only one in four American Meteorological Society broadcast meteorologists agrees with United Nations’ claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent global warming, a survey published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society reports.
          The survey results contradict the oft-repeated assertion that a consensus of scientists believes humans are causing a global warming crisis.”

          “The survey was conducted by the congressionally funded National Environmental Education Foundation and vetted by an advisory board of climate experts from groups such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, and Pew Center for Global Climate Change.”

          “Joe D’Aleo, executive director of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project and first director of meteorology at the Weather Channel, is not surprised by the survey results.”

          “AMS has tried very hard to brainwash broadcast meteorologists by forcing them to attend conferences and teleconferences with one-sided presentations where global warming evangelism is preached,” D’Aleo said. “Broadcasters send me notifications they get from AMS telling them they must attend these conferences where only the alarmist point of view is preached. This survey shows that broadcast meteorologists are not swayed by these one-sided presentations.

          Now in 2013-
          “In an AMS survey, where all respondents are AMS meteorologists, a majority have Ph.D.s and fully 80% have a Ph.D. or Masters Degree, position statements by organizational bureaucracies carry little scientific weight”

          “According to American Meteorological Society (AMS) data, 89% of AMS meteorologists believe global warming is happening, but only a minority (30%) is very worried about global warming.”

          “This sharp contrast between the large majority of meteorologists who believe global warming is happening and the modest minority who are nevertheless very worried about it is consistent with other scientist surveys. This contrast exposes global warming alarmists who assert that 97% of the world’s scientists agree humans are causing a global warming crisis simply because these scientists believe global warming is occurring. However, as this and other scientist surveys show, believing that some warming is occurring is not the same as believing humans are causing a worrisome crisis.”

          “Other questions solidified the meteorologists’ skepticism about humans creating a global warming crisis. For example, among those meteorologists who believe global warming is happening, only a modest majority (59%) believe humans are the primary cause. More importantly, only 38% of respondents who believe global warming is occurring say it will be very harmful during the next 100 years.”

  4. JC Smith

    Here is one of those scientific studies that those darn alarmists keep touting. It says that the earth (I guess that includes Germany) is STILL warming. I don’t how those alarmists get so many scientists to gather facts…..but they do.

    1. PaulM

      In fact if you read the original article by Hansen rather than the Propaganda in the press release it says “The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for the past decade”

  5. Juergen Uhlemann

    “the “good ole’ days” in the 1970′s and 1980′s”?

    What’s about the real “good ole’ days” before the 1970′s?

    “USS Skate (SSN-578) Becomes the First Submarine to Surface at the North Pole”

    “The North Pole is not static, ice varies significantly. The Arctic is not static either. Variance is the norm.”

    I was a young boy at that time, but I can remember the news.

  6. Arctic Sea Ice Area Back To Normal | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

    […] Full story […]

  7. roger


    It is quite touching to see how firmly you cling to your quaint creed despite the mounting scientific evidence to the contrary firmly indicating that you have been had.
    So called climate scientists, greeny weenies and Politicians have a financial stake in perpetuating the myth.
    What is your excuse?

  8. Arno Arrak

    This is very interesting. In my article which proved that Arctic warming is not greenhouse warmig I pointed out that the warm currents melting the Arctic ice paused in the middle of the century for thirty years and then resumed. The warming pause was from 1940 to 1970 and during that time the Arctic actually cooled. I pointed out that what has happened before can happen again and if this trend continues we just may have reached another such cooling period. Read my article in Energy & Environment, volume 22, issue 8, pp. 169 to 183 (2010).

  9. Arno Arrak

    pp. 1069-1083

  10. Gary

    I lived in Alaska for nearly 20 years. Another thing the warmists refuse to talk about is that at the North Pole, the sun is up 24 hours a day for six months from the first day of spring thru the last day of summer, then down 24 hours a day for another six months from the first day of fall thru the last day of winter. Same thing happens at the South Pole.

  11. Robert Burt

    Here is something that might help.

    Do any of you men know anything about denial? It’s a psychological mechanism that has certain very indentifiable symptoms. You need to look into it and understand it.

    1. DirkH

      Ok, for us only the part where they talk about an antropogenic cause for any warming is relevant, as nobody of us denies that we’re coming out of the LIA.
      So look at the graphic at
      “Climate Model Indications and the Observed Climate”

      The blue band is “natural forces only” and the pink band is “with human effects” (now, in that designation lies their conjecture – as it is not at all proven but only hypothesized that an increase in CO2 CAUSES an increase in temperatures; via the entirely unproven and HYPOTHETICAL positive water vapor feedback).

      Notice that real temperatures have performed like the blue band, as the climate models have falsely predicted a development in the pink band. So the theory must be rejected.

      By the way, the page you link to does not talk about the positive water vapor feedback that is a NECESSARY ingredient of the CO2AGW theory, so I would discard the page as a simplistic attempt at deluding the reader.

      We don’t want the sheeple to know about our very flakey conjectured mechanisms, do we?

    2. DirkH

      So, it’s your turn, Robert. Present observational evidence for positive water vapor feedback, please. Save your beloved CO2AGW theory. You’ve got a torpedo hit under the waterline and are about to sink.

    3. N. Marlowe

      Would you please reference “the identifiable symptoms of denial” for us men?

      Thanks, NM

  12. David in London

    @Stephen C Johnson

    Here is the latest (January 2013) study affirming the absence of known man made warming. I am delighted to be the one to provide you with such happy news as of course this is more than likely such fears originally raised in the 80s are not at all likely to happen.

    “…our rejection of AGW is not absolute; it might be a false positive, and we cannot rule out the possibility that recent global warming has an anthropogenic footprint. However, this possibility is very small, and is not statistically significant at conventional levels.”

    And don’t pick on poor Anthony Watts, if the media reported these studies as enthusiastically as they did the BEST and similar (which this one included in its analysis) people wouldn’t have to resort to doing their work for them on their websites.

  13. BBC: Arctic Summers Ice-Free ‘By 2013′ | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

    […] No Tricks Zone 16 January 2013 […]

  14. L. Kosteck

    the earth has fluctuated up and down, not to mention sideways, for all of its life… deep ice and soil cores have proven this… just “chill” the freak out.. it’s all a cycle… this is what the earth does… life has adapted and made it’s way through all the hub-bub … we are wayyy more advanced and intelligent than any life form that’s come before us… we’ll get through the curves thrown at us… “chill”… just my two or three cents worth.. think about it and CALM DOWN… best to all.. and all that’s yours… 😉 me

  15. Gordon

    Glad to see the Arctic area is OK again. Perhaps we can all turn our attention to our plight here in the UK. We have had some snow over the last couple of days and it might carry on for another three according to the forecasters.

    Listening to and watching Media reports – showing pictures of empty supermarket shelves due to panic buying, having a 30 minute TV programme devoted to Snow last night at 7.30 in the evening, and countless shots of snow on roads, snow on roofs, snow on… well you get the idea, it is clear we are all doomed over here. I would have asked you to send emergency aid as soon as possible but clearly it is too late. We are all doomed over here. I feel it is my duty to end writing this now and go out into the streets and run round like a headless chicken.

    1. DirkH

      You better prepare for some catastrophic warming RSN.

  16. MJH Raichyk

    Does anyone who is analyzing and monitoring the arctic temps, ever look at the complication of the just found out realization that the Russians have been dumping their nuclear waste in the arctic waters on their side of the arctic??

    Whole nuclear sub reactor cores and totally has been doing this for about a couple decades, surely enough to skew the temperatures on their side and with the generated currents, likely over the whole arctic, don’t you think?

    And so now the Norwegians are offering to help the Russians get some control over the implications, since the Russians weren’t even keeping records of the dumping.. maybe there will be some accounting of materials and status soon, but what would this possible disturbance do to studies of the arctic as being indicative of what CO2 is doing… it’s the nuclear waste that’s brewing… ttyl

  17. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?
  18. Martin van Etten

    if you call the 2000’s average extent in winter normal, yes…

  19. Doug Cotton

    My new paper is now online …


    The paper explains why the physics involved in atmospheric and sub-surface heat transfer appears to have been misunderstood, and incorrectly applied, when postulating that a radiative “greenhouse effect” is responsible for warming the surfaces of planets such as Venus and our own Earth.

    A detailed discussion of the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics endeavours to settle the much debated issue as to whether or not a thermal gradient evolves spontaneously in still air in a gravitational field. The author is aware of attempted rebuttals of this hypothesis, but cogent counter arguments are presented, together with reference to empirical evidence.

    The ramifications are substantial, in that they eliminate any need for any “greenhouse” explanation as to why the surface temperatures are as observed. No other valid reason appears plausible to explain how the required energy gets into the planetary surfaces, this being especially obvious in regard to the high temperatures measured at the surface of the crust of Venus.

    The paper includes some counter-intuitive concepts which sceptical readers may be tempted to reject out of hand. Physics sometimes has some surprises, and so you are encouraged to read and understand the argument step by step, for it is based on sound physics, and unlocks some mysteries of the Solar System, including core and mantle temperatures, not previously explained in this manner to the best of the author’s knowledge.

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