Arctic Sea Ice Surprise Global Warming Experts By Remaining Stable This Decade

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

Reports of shrinking sea ice are fake news

By Snowfan (June 19)

The Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) expects sea ice extent growth in June 2019:

The DMI plot for the development of Arctic sea ice area (extent) from June 1979 to the PROGNOSE for June, 2019. Since 2010, i.e. 9 years ago, the sea ice areas of the Arctic have been growing in trend. Reports about disappearing sea ice in the Arctic are fake news. See also: No ice melting in the Arctic in this decade. Source: DMI-Plots Ice Cover

May Arctic sea ice trend now stable 15 years

The DMI plot for the development of Arctic sea ice area (extent) from May 1979 to May 2019. Since 2004, i.e. for 15 years, the sea ice areas of the Arctic have been stable at around 13 million km². Reports about disappearing sea ice in the Arctic are fake news. Source: DMI-Plots Ice Cover.

Greenland sees 8 consecutive days of heavy snowfall

Also heavy snowfall continues for eight days In Greenland – loss of ice mass even lower than yesterday and still well below average.

After the eighth heavy snowfall in a row and without end, the loss of mass in the Greenland ice on June 27, 2019 continues to be below average (lower chart, blue line above the dark grey line) and even somewhat lower than yesterday. Source: DMI Greenland ice mass balance with supplements.

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

21 responses to “Arctic Sea Ice Surprise Global Warming Experts By Remaining Stable This Decade”

  1. richard

    You have to laugh. No ice melting in the supposedly, hottest years EVAH, EVAH!!

  2. Petit_Barde

    Ice is the new warm !

  3. Sidian

    The Greenland part is funny, because of the recent picture in the media claiming ice loss is unprecedented and it’s all due to global warming. I wonder how many mainstream media will report on the sudden change in weather up there. It would be ethical to do a follow-up you know.

    1. Joe

      Those green “trend” lines are laughable. That is not how you draw a trend line. The recent spike is still within the downward trend’s normal deviations through even the most basic of visual analysis.

      Also, the ice mass in Greenland in blue is well within the snow pack standard deviation (light grey background) for the years listed. Nothing new to see here.

      This type of misleading analysis is frankly embarrassing to any real scientist. Data doesn’t lie, stop misleading people DMI.

      All is well. Go back to your margarita machines and enjoy.

      1. David Reich

        The fact that the trend starts in 1979 is considerably more laughable. Satellite measurements of the arctic existed as early as 1973 (shown in the 1990 IPCC report but later redacted from the report- I wonder why?) when the arctic ice was considerably less than 1979, but DMI like IPCC won’t show that data……https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Screen-Shot-2017-02-14-at-5.53.39-AM-down.gif

        Further, the director of DMI back in 1991 said, “temperatures have been falling steadily since the 1940s in Greenland, and the polar ice cap is getting thicker and thicker”……..https://realclimatescience.com/2017/12/dmi-1991-arctic-ice-thickening-since-the-1940s/

  4. Bruce of Newcastle

    All run by the AMO. Arctic sea ice has plateaued because the AMO has plateaued. The Arctic Ocean has nearly no connection with the Pacific Ocean because of the Bering Strait bottleneck. So the conditions in the Atlantic drive the Arctic.

    The AMO is cyclic on a ~60 year wavelength, so as you see from this graph it’ll plummet and Arctic sea ice will skyrocket.

  5. Arctic Sea Ice Surprise Global Warming Experts By Remaining Stable – Truth is difficult but essential…
  6. Arctic Sea Ice Surprise Global Warming Experts By Remaining Stable This Decade | Un hobby...

    […] P. Gosselin, June 28, 2019 in […]

  7. Lloyd Martin Hendaye

    No-one is “expert on the future”. Because there are no experiments, only manifestly biased (“error prone”)observations/measurements, so-called Climate Science is nothing but a classification scheme with all the predictive power of esoteric botany.

    For the record, Australian researcher Robert Holmes’ peer-reviewed Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law (pub. December 2017) definitively refutes any possible CO2 connection to climate variations: Where Temperature T = PM/Rp, any planet’s near-surface global Temperature T equates to its Atmospheric Pressure P times Mean Molar Mass M over its Gas Constant R times Atmospheric Density p.

    Anyone with the slightest acquaintance of century-old agitprop techniques sees Paul Ehrlich, James Hansen, John Holdren, Michael Mann and all their chiliastic ilk for the Luddite commissars-in-waiting that they are.

    1. tom0mason

      “Climate Science is nothing but a classification scheme with all the predictive power of esoteric botany.”

      When I first read that line I thought you wrote “Climate Science is nothing but a classification scheme with all the predictive power of eccentric lobotomy .” 😀

      Thinking about it though … 🙂

  8. Edim

    Those trends (green) don’t look right.

    1. JimGiordano

      Ya, looks like it’s just a connection of the 1st and last points, whereas the actual trend would be even more positive.

  9. Garrett Moffitt

    Idiots cherry pick data on a extremely short trend, apply it to long trend, ignore all other days to claim climate change is a hoax committed by every expert on the planet. Same idiots ignore the fact warming planet can be scientifically prove in any freshman college sciency course.

    1. Yonason

      ”Idiots…claim…climate change is a hoax committed by EVERY expert on the planet.” – Garrett Moffitt

      Sorry, G.M., but your strawmann argumont doesn’t hold up. Here are just a few who prove your claim is false.

      Will Happer
      Richard Lindzen
      Ivan Giaever
      Bob Carter
      Tim Ball
      Nir Shaviv
      Richard Keen
      Murry Salby
      Nils Axel Mörner
      Willie Soon
      Sally Baliunas
      Don Easterbrook

      …and over 30,000 others
      http://www.petitionproject.org/

      1. Yonason

        OK, technically not a “strawman” – more of a bald faced lie; a variant of the debunked 97% consensus.

        (Yes, it has been debunked.)
        https://judithcurry.com/2015/08/27/the-conceits-of-consensus/

        https://www.cfact.org/2016/02/17/propaganda-top-mit-climate-scientist-trashes-97-consensus-claim/

      2. SebastianH

        Thank you for listing the climate nutters or worst offenders as we like to call them. This list misses a few names, but those are the people misleading you guys. They aren’t experts … well, experts in trolling maybe 😉

  10. Ted

    Do you “very smart people” even know the science at all?

    In fact, it’s so simple even you could devise a test.

    1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

    2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

    3) When visible light strikes an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

    4) Greenhouse gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

    5) Humans produce more CO2(and other greenhouse gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

    Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don’t actual address the facts of AGW? Don’t have a test that shows those facts to be false?
    So now you have to answer:
    Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?

    1. Yonason

      Do you have references to the so-called tests you think have been made? If so, than supply them, please. It’s called “scholarship,” Ted.

    2. Josh

      Ted, your comment shows that you know nothing of the complexity of the climate and what climate realists are actually saying. If that wasn’t bad enough, you have attempted to dehumanise the rest of us with the childish use of the term ‘denier’. The author of this site has shared numerous publications that call the entire AGW theory into question. You could learn something if you cared to look.

      1. SebastianH

        Like that Harde paper currently at the front page? 😉

        what exactly can we learn from papers like that? How the author still doesn’t know the difference between residence time and adjustment time? Something like that? Yeah 😉

  11. Kyron

    Humans produce more CO2 than can be absorbed through the cycle because of geoengineering!..take that out of the equation and release the hidden technology.

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