« Ever sailed to 85N? | Main | New NASA videos »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


All of this despite the 2 billion Hirohima bombs. Amazing.


Radiative imbalance doesn't say anything about where the energy is going.

BTW, I'm posting the ASI update 9 next week, as I expect the minimum will be reached around that time.

Chris Reynolds

And the first commenter takes the prize for dumbass of the thread.... well done that man ;)

I've had today free and have spent most of the day delaying writing up a PIOMAS August summary and looking at the atmosphere this year. I'm seriously confused!

I now doubt the PNA cuts it, although the graph shows dominant negative swing over the last three years...
This summer was a mildly positive PNA (about 0.5 sigma).

Greenland 500mb GPH is back up to similar levels as the 2007 to 2012 years. Also the 'summer pattern' correlation makes 2014 look like a 2007 to 2012 year. But the temperature for JJA was around the same as 2013, and well below the typical for summer in the 2000s.

500mb GPH plots for 2014 minus 2007 to 2012 looks kind of ENSOish, but the sign's wrong over Siberia. Hard to see any semblance of the PNA or NAO in it.

It's very puzzling, aside from temperature itself (surface and 850mb), everything looks like it was a good melt year atmosphere wise.

One oddity, taking the geopotential height for 500mb around 64degN latitude, whereas 2007 to 2013 show level or a hump around Greenland, 2014 stands out as a significant dip, well below the other post 2007 years (and in anti-phase to 2012). In that respect 2014 looks more like a 1990s or early 2000 year than a post 2007 year.

I do wish someone (NOAA/MetOffice/whoever) would provide an index of the Arctic Dipole strength. I don't think I'm up to principle component analysis.


Astounding rebound in Arctic, record high levels in Antarctic. Tough year to be a warmist.


Too bad it's not just a game, keithwqq.



Those who are trying to trick you will often use one or two years of data to imply a long term trend, or will only mention the years that fit their agenda.

People who use correct methods to seek the truth operate differently. They don't jump to conclusions about the long term trend based on only one or two years. Note also that this blog covers arctic sea ice volume every year, not just in the years that would suit one agenda.

The 2013 and 2014 minimum arctic sea ice volumes may be closer to the trend than the 2012 minimum arctic sea ice volume was if the latter was well below the longer term trend. Regardless, the long term trend is downward.

The evidence still overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Earth is warming, and that human activities are a major cause. Maybe it would be a "tough year" to maintain that conclusion if one's conclusion were based on only two years of cherry-picked data, but people who correctly use evidence don't use these incorrect methods, and are less likely to be suckers for false claims from those who do.

Maybe some ignorant or deceitful people assume that this would be a "tough year for warmists", if they assume that "warmists" all use the same flawed methods that they use, but in this they would be wrong, just as many of their conclusions about global warming based on their flawed methods are wrong. I recommend not falling for flawed arguments of the ignorant or deceitful. Their claim that it must be a "tough year for warmists", is just another indication of their ignorance or deceit, and I think that there isn't much point in repeating their claim here.


keithwqq - not a tough year at all. Actually one where we "warmists" all breathe a sigh of relief that we've dodged a bullet one more time, and may have a little more slack to use to adapt, adjust, accommodate the changes that are coming.

You're otherwise wrong with the two other counts with your assertion.

First, that there's been an astounding rebound. Actually, looking at numbers in the arctic, they are very similar to 2005, 2009 and 2013 for extent and area. Volume has increased for the 2nd year in the row, but is still 30% lower than any year prior to 2007, and within 10% of the 2007 value. That hardly a recovery, I'm afraid. "Recovery" is a word best saved for when volume, area and extent return to pre-2000 values. You will be waiting a very, very long time for that to happen, if it ever does.

Trumpeting Antarctic SIE as reaching a record high I'm afraid highlights your lack of understanding of the mechanisms producing those numbers.

To get credibility with the crowd here, rather than just simply troll with a "drive by" comment, you will need to do quite a bit more homework.


I would not comment on 2014 before the minima is in, that makes sense. And there is very interesting developments, making 2014 very unlike 2013, I knew the greater melting would be late months ago, so it is unjustified to do an autopsy on a living corpse. As far as volume is concerned, Piomas is based on a model of sorts, the sea ice models have failed to replicate recent years sea ice melts. There is a flaw with the models which needs to be discovered. As I watched sea ice bergy bit melt right in front of me in water +0.6 C now over Barrow Strait, I am inspired to say the NW passage through Peel sound is open (contrary to recent prognostications) and that late melting clearly outlines the thicker more consolidated ice as on JAXA is about the same as 2012. To the untrained eye it certainly seems a recovery, but alas it isn't at all.
+0.5 C water with warmed up thinner ice spells melting with a capital M. Of which pales compared to sea ice shores with waters +1 to +3 degrees above normal:

Kristian Fredriksson

The ice has been retracting since we came out of the little ice age and if you travel to Grossglockner in Austria you can see how much the ice melted on signs, telling you what year the ice was at that level, when you walk down to the glacier.

This has been going on for 200 years now but now we can see new glaciers building up around Europe, even in Great Britain. It can indicate a turn over, because of the hiatus of 18 years for the increase of the global warming, according to RSS satellite data.

There will be a delay of melting of course. In the southern hemisphere the ice is growing as before and maybe we are at a turning point right now.

If we are I hope the temperature will stay at this level and not sink too much, because that is not so good for the climate in the northern hemisphere. Right now it is perfect. The greening of the earth and less bad weather incidents are good news as I see it.

Higher carbon dioxide level will reduce the amount of stomata in leaves and they will be more resilient to drought because of lesser evaporation. That is why the Earth is getting greener with higher levels of carbon dioxide. That is happening right now.

Also less temperature differences between the Arctic and the tropics stabilizes the weather and reduces the sea currents and the winds. That reduces the heat transport to the Arctic and that can be a problem in some years i guess. The cold winters in northern America and Scandinavia can be back I am afraid. At least will the heat be delayed a week or two in the springtime.

The Arctic is the most important heat regulator on Earth. It emits much more heat to the Universe than it gets from the Sun. We should celebrate that fact. Maybe give thanks to the old god Bore who takes care of the Arctic. At least if you ask the old Germanic people living in the north.

Chris Reynolds

Has somebody opened up a portal to the dolt-dimension (i.e. WTFWT)? Oh, I remember, it was you Neven....

Still it's your blog. ;)


Kristian I would ask where on Earth you got your information about glaciers from?

Observations by scientists show glaciers are in sharp decline worldwide, and this loss has accelerated over recent decades.

This isn't "coming out of the little ice age". Ice retreat has accelerated abnormally in recent decades, it's due to the sharp warming of the Earth we've seen, which in turn has been caused by man.

"the hiatus of 18 years for the increase of the global warming"

There is no haitus of 18 years. That isn't something you'll find a scientist claiming, because the data is unequivocal: both the surface temperature of earth and heat content of the oceans have risen over the last 18 years and they will continue rising so long as greenhouse gases continue to increase.

"If we are I hope the temperature will stay at this level and not sink too much"

They aren't going to sink. Not a chance. They are going to rise much further than now. Greenhouse gases are still rising.

"Also less temperature differences between the Arctic and the tropics stabilizes the weather and reduces the sea currents and the winds. The Arctic is the most important heat regulator on Earth. It emits much more heat to the Universe than it gets from the Sun. We should celebrate that fact."

And this is where you are dangerously wrong. What do the observations show? They show the Arctic is warming faster than the tropics. They show Arctic summer sea ice is in sharp decline.

You admit the arctic is an important heat regulator, but you completely ignore the fact that heat regulator is in meltdown. Where on earth do you get the idea that what is plainly observed by scientists isn't happening?


"but now we can see new glaciers building up around Europe, even in Great Britain"

There speaks the voice of an incurable myopic.

I was in the highlands only one week ago. Grampians, Cairngorms, Lawyers Group, Beinn Mhor and south of the Nevis range.

Glaciation? Well if green grass and bare stone is glaciation, there you have it. A few bits of snow in the north facing corries, but less than usual.

Perhaps I got it wrong? Perhaps glaciation has struck in Wales? Or maybe London.

Although I must admit a different kind of glaciation may strike in Westminster if the Scots vote Yes on September 18th....

Please go away and take your wet dreams with you.


Has somebody opened up a portal to the dolt-dimension (i.e. WTFWT)? Oh, I remember, it was you Neven....

I believe it's a portal that opens itself, Chris. And as a fellow-dolt I can be somewhat empathic and indulgent. :-)

It's unfortunate that people so uncritically assume misinformation to be true and then spread it around the Internet. Rebounds soon become recoveries, even though it's too early to tell, slowdowns become hiatuses/pauses/stops/reversals, even though there are several short-term factors at play that will flip again one day.

I'll have more to say about this in due time.


Quoting Chris R from the forum: "I don't know if anyone has pointed this out, but 2014 saw the second smallest PIOMAS volume loss from 1/6 to 31/8, only 1996 was lower."

I'm baffled, but it's worth brainstorming some factors and seeing whether we can piece together a causal chain. Compactness (especially in the main body of the pack) seems to be important, probably related to relatively low pressure gradients during most of the melt season. (Now that the cyclones are stirring, does this portend an atypical September drop in volume?)

Also related to light winds, there was some discussion earlier about temperature inversion and fog, which would reduce insolation at the surface (crucially, around the solstice). There might be some other, seemingly minor but disproportionate factor - I recall mention of a light snowfall that might have had just the timing to retard the onset of melt pond formation.


According to NASA the Arctic in 2013 was much colder than 2012.
Most other areas of the planet were warmer than 2012.
One doesn't have to be a brain surgeon to work out that lower temperatures in the Arctic mean less melting of the Arctic ice. Claiming a recovery because a small portion of the Globe is not warming as fast as the planet is just voodoo science.

Tor Bejnar

You have identified all the vectors I've thought were the possible/probable causes of this slow/minimal melt.

Chris Reynolds


Good topic to discuss.

From my most recent blog post. http://dosbat.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/piomas-august-2014.html
Considering Wipneus's graph of Fram export in PIOMAS. The largest possible contribution to the difference between August 2013 and 2014 volume is under 8.7%.

So we can put aside Fram.

Temperatures have been unusually low.
Aloft, at the 850mb level 2014 is seen to be a bit warmer than 2013, but not as warm as the 2007 to 2012 years.

However 2014 pressure is similar to the 2007 to 2012 'summer pattern'

2007 to 2012 summer pattern.

The correlation between the summer pattern and 2014 is back up, after 2013, along with the other 2007 to 2012 years.
That makes 2014 look like a high melt year due to the dipole between low pressure across Siberia, and high over the Arctic Ocean that is associated with the summer pattern. But this year the Atlantic Ocean deviated from the pattern with high pressure (what role has that played?).

500mb geopotential height (500mb GPH) was back up this year, which fits with the idea 2014 was a summer pattern year.
I suspect the steering of the jet caused by this has had a role in the wet summers that marked 2007 to 2012 in the UK and NW Europe. But this summer has been dry in comparison.

And taking the difference between 2007 to 2012 and 2014 in 500mb GPH.

Across Siberia looks like a negative PNA.

While across the US and Atlantic looks like a negative MEI ENSO(La Nina).

Which is odd because both those indices have been moderately positive for June July August. If you see another interpretation to those last three please let me know.

With temperature over sea ice one has to be cautious, loss of ice cover in summer reveals ocean which warms above zero degC. However the bulk of extra volume this year is due to the Central Arctic (78% of the total PIOMAS volume increase from 2012 is from grid box thicknesses between 2.0 and 3.9m thick in the Central Arctic), that's away from the ice edge off the CAA. So I don't think we're looking at the ice driving temperature, I think temperature, and hence weather, has driven 2014.

This comment has been long enough so I'll wrap up, but before I do here are two plots. Both are NCEP/NCAR 2014 minus 2007 to 2012. When both were produced I got the same comment from the system 'This plot is not dissimilar to the PNA'.

Sfc temperature.
Does this show (Beaufort Chukchi, ESS cooling in 2014 due to more ice, same in Kara and Barents.

Sfc pressure.


Neven and all,

I think it is good and healthy from time to time to have the ignorant posts from a denialist or two. I would never argue for opening the gates widely.

However, we here get very focused on the minutiae of the arctic ice melt trying to understand the precise mechanisms and dominant forces causing the melt to occur in the precise way that it does.

The dolts serve several purposes. They remind us that for many of our brethren (far too many) that untested opinion is all they know. They do not live in the world of tested and refined hypothesis. They haven't the faintest idea how to live in the real world that we each take for granted. They live instead in the world of shouted slogans and gang rule, of loud mouthed gang leaders and megalomaniacs with no care for the future or anything but their own ends.

More than this, as demonstrated so well here, the occasional interloper will not last long, as usually serene folks get pushed out of their chairs and are then forced to marshal some of the best and most cogent explanations of the processes dominating our world today that I have seen anywhere. I think this refocuses us all, so that we each can muster these arguments in the day to day battle against the forces of ignorance, short term greed, and worse.



Another fantastic year of coverage of this ongoing debacle, Neven!

Given a flock of coal mine canaries -- some coughing and wheezing from aspergillosis, others staggering from mycoplasma, the remainder feverish with canary pox or spitting up blood from airsac mites -- I suppose we could argue over which will be first to fall off its perch.

I still favor Arctic sea ice as being the first to go. However it's fair to say that greenhouse gas increase, atmospheric moisture content, Arctic shelf methane release, ocean acidification, sea level rise (WAIS ice shelf collapse, Greenland melt acceleration), ocean current rearrangement, stationary weather patterns (jet stream slowing and dipping) and so forth have their place already among the sick canaries. They'll be falling off the perch the way things are going.

A Facebook User

Perhaps this is the cause of the 'Glaciers forming in Scotland" debate? I have not seen this with my own eyes, but I can confirm there are no similar conditions in Snowdonia. The BBC are usually pretty accurate, are we saying they have got this completely wrong? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-28885119

K Z.

Hi all,

I've never posted before, but I've read your blog weekly for the last two years, Neven. It's one of my favorite--many thanks. I'm one of the weird people who also reads WUWT, RC, and a few others on a regular basis. All cum grano salis!

I do not by any means consider myself a "skeptic" (in the sense of I don't believe in AGW), but I will say that I am not particularly concerned about the impact of global warming. I know that is enough to earn me total scorn in some (or many!) quarters, but I just wanted to lay that on the table and not pretend to be something I'm not. I personally consider myself "unaffiliated."

One request I would have for many posters across the entire Internet is--can we please avoid name calling like "dolt," "denialist," or "deceitful people" (hmm, a lot of "d" words!).

Can we avoid stupid ad hominem attacks like " They haven't the faintest idea how to live in the real world" or "They live instead in the world of shouted slogans"? When I see sentences like these next to calling people deceitful denialists, I wonder if the pot is calling the kettle black? There's no need to personally denigrate people who disagree with you. You catch more flies with honey, and all that good stuff, right?

Leave the stupid attacks and playground insults to those who don't have a leg to stand on.

If your (and I'm not targeting anyone specific here) goal is truly to explain and convince, I can tell you that you are alienating a lot of people when you write things like this.

It's obvious to everybody that we don't understand everything relating to climate mechanics. The "skeptics" take this too far and say "we don't understand everything, therefore we don't understand ANYTHING." I find the opposite mistake just as odious--"we understand some things, therefore we understand everything." There's uncertainty; I think everybody would--or should--agree with that. Let's debate the uncertainty, let's discuss what we do know, and what we don't know, rather than make grandiose statements and denigrate our opponents.


A Facebook User

Hear Hear K.Z. Good post. I am a dyed in wool warmy, I'm convinced by the evidence, but when I see people who are skeptics who make reasonable comments being denigrated it makes me ashamed of my own side. There is an argument that says the term denier is not an insult, it is an apt description. It's the same argument people used to justify racist term. The golden rule is that if someone does not like the label you give them, don't use it. It is the decision of the recipient, not the user as to whether a term is good or bad. Ultimately the idea that there are only two sorts of people, skeptics and believers is nonsense, there is a wide spectrum of beliefs and to suggest that there are only two is reductionist thinking, black or white, with us or against us and all that damaging ideology.

Ghoti Of Lod

The BBC article about Ben Nevis snowfields is being used to promote an incorrect notion that there is suddenly glaciation occurring.

The article clearly states that snowfields surviving the summer are not new.

"Ben Nevis and a few other peaks in the Scottish Highlands provide the most southerly refuge for some of these species which can only survive due to the altitude and presence of semi-permanent snow fields."

In fact a quick check of Wikipedia indicates the summit observatory "which operated from 1883 to 1904, reported that snow survived on the north-east cliffs through more years than it vanished".

So, no, this is not new but it is recently under study and so increases of snow in cold summers are being noted.


DavidR. 2013 was indeed a pivotal year, but likely an indication of melts to come, whereas it was colder for dynamical reasons, ie it was extremely cloudy all summer long. With thinner ice, the cyclones should take over the summer Arctic Ocean, this should give a respite in compaction and insolation greater melts, I believe it likely that higher surface and sst temperatures would have to progress further in order to compensate for this dynamical cooling. 2014 is the offshoot of 2013, more thick ice at maxima 2014 created a partial return of normal clockwise "Gyre" weather giving the results we know. Contrary to 2013, 2014 had a lot more heating of the Arctic seas, this likely will mean overall thinner ice at next maxima, and a return to 2013 summer weather, especially given the warmer sst's of the North Atlantic and Pacific.

Fake skeptics fail to understand the details or mechanics and resolve to propagate the simple look, they want to reach the short attention spans most people have about the Arctic. But most people are smarter than they think.

Eventually this dynamical "freeze" will be overwhelmed by warmer Global temperatures, making for an interesting unusual
melt pattern we had a glimpse of this season, water gaps will show at the center of cyclones eventually growing in size from within the ice pack. However the tidal currents will quickly cover the gap, suffices to say that many intense cyclones will rip away the consolidated fabric of the pack until there is not much thicker ice left. Expect the unexpected when weather patterns change.

Chris Reynolds


It's not ad hominen. An ad-hom is what some people do when they can't dismiss their opponent's arguments with evidence and reason.

I can dismiss their arguments with evidence and reason, I just can't be bothered anymore, mole-whaking is futile and merely fuels the mistaken belief that they have a point worth discussing.

Calling such people dolts is an insult, not and ad-hom attack.

Iceman and David R have tried to move discussion in a fruitful direction, Wayne has now contributed. How about your contribution?

Chris Reynolds


There certainly is an argument for thicker ice having a role this year, expecially in the East Siberian Sea. The Drift Age Model, HYCOM and ASCAT showed the tongue of MYI entering the Pacific Sector. However 2010 had a similar event, and June/July average compactness was 0.685, whereas this year it was 0.733, a significant increase (June July average compactness for 2007 to 2012 was 0.681).

K Z.


Thanks for the reply, and I do appreciate that you feel very emotionally about these issues. I simply think that responding coolly and collectedly, rather than trying to win some sort of online pissing match (excuse my language) is the better tack.

And not to be pedantic, but I said calling peoples dolts was "name calling" not ad hominem reasoning. I listed two statements as examples of ad hominem attacks. Check out (e.g.) the Wikipedia article on ad hominems for proper usage.

I tried to be careful to limit my comment only to how arguments are presented. To be perfectly blunt, I don't feel that I know enough about the issues to have an opinion worth stating. I very much appreciate those who have made thoroughly reasoned and supported statements. Those are the posts that I come here to read and learn from.

I also did not mean to hijack the comments here! If you (Chris) or any others would like to continue the discussion elsewhere, I'm game!

Looking forward to the end of the season and hopefully many seasons to come!


K Z.:

I didn't call a commenter a deceitful person. I warned a commenter about deceitful people. I believe that the deceived greatly outnumber the deliberately deceitful, so I wouldn't assume that a commenter was being deceitful unless it were obvious, but obviously the deceivers try not to make their trickery obvious, and many of them are skilled at making themselves appear to be genuine. I have the same warning for you, if you don't already know: Beware, as some are deliberately deceitful, and it can often be difficult to discern this.


Kristian Fredriksson:

Without addressing your other points, the acceleration in glacial melting a couple of centuries ago was due to increased soot from the industrial revolution, and probably also partially due to dust from increased herding of livestock across arid regions (which can break a crusty surface and allow dust to escape). Soot and dust can land on ice and reduce its reflectivity, which can hasten melt.


KZ, Ghoti Of Lod said what I would have said. Nevis tends to melt back to almost no snow or ice each year. I've walked Nevis in an almost no ice year. In the last decade we reached a point where pretty much all snow and ice melted off Nevis. So this BBC story about "glaciation" is simply the BBC getting in the words they want there. The BBC has been developing a poor record on climate over the last decade.

I was short because I believe that if you are going to come onto a board and start making statements, it is good form to actually check on what that forum holds and the information the people there are posting about. Chris Reynolds is quite right, there is significant evidence, in a large part aided by Chris, to completely void all the things you have said.

If you want to talk about UK press articles I suggest you start and end at the Guardian. They have the best climate coverage in the UK press, bar none and dislike the politics of the paper as I do, I laud them for their very honest stance on the climate.

I also have spent extensive time on WUWT and RC. I don't so much spend time on RC nowadays as my time is limited and there is more here than I can possibly cover in my free time. As for WUWT? I have pointed out to them their basic inconsistency over and over. Nobody is listening. If you read the post threads there are at least 3 competing theories for any one point in contention. All three are mutually exclusive and impossible to reconcile, yet, because they all agree on the same thing. Namely that AGW is a fake. They are willing to agree with each other.

Nobody wants that kind of discussion here. There is much to learn and far too many things going on in the cryoshpere to spend any time on that kind of rubbish.

Another fantastic year of coverage of this ongoing debacle, Neven!

Thanks, A-Team. Just wait until I'm finally done building the house, aka Arctic Sea Ice Blog headquarters. ;-)

Greg Wellman

Hi KZ. I'm an infrequent commenter here, and I'm definitely not going to get into who said what about who ... instead, I'd like to ask you a pretty straightforward question. You said "I am not particularly concerned about the impact of global warming." My question is "Why not?" Possible answers could include, but are certainly not limited to (a) you believe we will soon curtail emissions, such that atmospheric concentrations (CO2+equivalents) never exceed say, 2x pre-industrial (b) you believe that the amount of warming from any given amount of emissions will be less than the central estimates given in the IPCC reports (c) you believe the actual effects of elevated temperatures on rainfall patterns, crop growth and sea level will not be harmful to most (or all?) human (and animal?) populations ...

I'll stop there. I don't wish to put words in your mouth, I'm just asking you to elaborate on why you don't think this is a big deal.


Kristian Fredriksson

Here are a study from Himalaya published i April 2014.



That's another highly untrustworthy source of information, Kristian. It's too bad you think it's reliable enough to post as a completely off-topic item on this blog. Please, don't do that anymore.

Robert S

A question about PIOMAS:

I was able to fly a significant portion of the CAA on August 23rd. In comparing observations made during that flight with the NSIDC data for the same date, I noted significant discrepancies. Significant areas that were shown as having >15% ice cover actually had no ice present. Clearly this is just a single set of observations, without much evidentiary value. However, continued review of daily satellite imagery and Canadian Ice Service data suggests that similar errors have persisted there-after.

Given that NSIDC data is assimilated into PIOMAS, this suggests the possibility that some errors are being introduced into the model. If these discrepancies are systematic, they will likely have little or no impact on the value of PIOMAS as an estimate of Arctic Sea Ice change over time. If on the other hand they reflect conditions specific to 2014, there may be some tendency toward over-estimation of this years ice volume, relative to other years.

Clearly all of this falls into the "anecdotal" realm at this time. However, I wondered if anyone had a longer term view of the NSIDC data set, and/or a deeper understanding of the impact of the NSIDC data on PIOMAS than is provided by the resources that I have found to date?

Kristian Fredriksson

Neven. Can you explain for me why these scientists from India are "Not trustworthy" please. Is it because they are from India?

What is wrong with this study? One or two arguments please.



With Neven and the blog's indulgence...

K Z.
A Facebook User
Kristian Fredriksson
Others, as They Appear

I would request you show both a bit of patience, a bit of respect, and take on some responsibility.

You are entering into a discussion here with people who actively study the arctic. Some are scientists actively engaged in arctic research. Others are amateur scientists who live in the region and have been watching and measuring events for years if not decades. Others have been crunching numbers and following discussions attempting for years in a good faith effort to understand both the discussion and what we are seeing. ( I include myself in this last category)

You need to understand they (and I) are impatient when people introduce half-baked ideas into the discussion. I've had my ears boxed before, you need to expect the same. Take the hint, and perform due dilligence on your own explorations before you start posting nonsense.

You should also have the common sense to consider carefully the rebuttals people post in response to your half-baked (or raw...) notional presentations. There are an extraordinary number of dedicated, intelligent, highly informed people here, who spend similarly extraordinary amounts of time seriously considering the questions posed by changes in arctic climate.

By way of stating a corrolary to the Hitchens Razor - "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" - That which you assert based on flawed or incomplete factual support can similarly be dismissed almost out of hand.

Do. Your. Homework.

I would STRONGLY advise that before trotting out your own pet theory or bias, that you spend time following first. Read older discussions. Follow the forums. And most important of all:

Ask. Questions.

In this forum, I have NEVER seen questions treated with anything less than respect and complete seriousness. People may direct you to the forums, but you will be answered.

So, to review...

1) People here are both informed and busy. If you say or do something stupid, expect to be rebuked. They don't have time for much else.

2) People here are experienced and dedicated. Take advantage of that rather than trollishly dismiss it. Doing so only reveals shortcomings on your part.

3) Study the science. That means, examine your bias' and consider alternatives. Your opinion or that of others of people on this forum notwithstanding, here it is a constant, unceasing activity. This place is a crucible. Be prepared to have the slag boiled off of your ideas

Kristian Fredriksson

Even IPCC admit that they were wrong. Are they "Not trustworthy" too?



Kristian Fredriksson -

"Can you explain for me why these scientists from India are "Not trustworthy" please. Is it because they are from India?

What is wrong with this study? One or two arguments please."

Horse Feathers.

Neven didn't say scientists from India are not trustworthy. He said the Register was not trustworthy. At the very least, it is at best a *tertiary* source of information - an interpretation of an interpretation of an original study.

*You* need to run down the original articles and references, so we can look at them directly. Enough of with your foolish attempt at proving some sort of bias.

Show your work.

Neven. Can you explain for me why these scientists from India are "Not trustworthy" please. Is it because they are from India?

Like jdallen_wa says: Andrew Orlowski from the Register is not a trustworthy source of information. Handle with care.

The 'discussion' you're trying to initiate here by jumping from one argument to another, has been, is still being, and will be discussed for thousands of times on the Internet.

This is not the appropriate venue for it. It's boring and useless. If you want me or others here to explain or correct misinformation regarding the Arctic and its sea ice, then fine. But you'll also have to make an effort and not resort to simply copying and pasting d/misinformation from highly unreliable sources. Please, be skeptical.

John Christensen

Hi Neven,

Thank you for another great PIOMAS update for August!

It is overall a great update, but I have a comment on the PICT metric, where you wrote:

"..the 2014 trend line on our PICT graph made a deep dive followed by a steep climb during August. This probably has to do with CT SIA finally starting to drop faster from mid-August onwards, meaning that the volume gets spread over a smaller ice pack, and thus average thickness goes up."

As also commented on the ASI 8 update, I would say that the drop in PICT early August (apparent thinning of ice thickness) to a significant extent was caused by a decrease in melt ponds, which makes CT area numbers show reduced or no melt (Day 215-229 on the CT Area chart). So if you keep the area number unchanged, but PIOMAS registers volume loss, it will look like thinning of the pack.
The same way, when warmer air entered the Arctic from day 229, this increased surface temperatures and melt ponds, which caused area numbers to go down again, and PICT to go up, creating lots of 'noise' and challenges of seeing actual change in ice thickness.
I don't know if this can be helped. Dividing PIOMAS by IJIS extent would eliminate the melt pond noise, but would introduce an unrealistic measure for thickness. Ideally an indicator for 'melt pond-fraction' should be used to establish a more reliable CT area number..


Kristian Fredriksson:

Yes, some of the Himalayan glaciers, being among the highest in the world, should be among the last to start to be seriously affected by global warming. (Nevertheless, the study that you posted a link to states that among the Himalayan glaciers that showed a change, almost all of them were receding.)

Why did you focus on the Himalayan glaciers?
Focusing on Himalayan glaciers might give the wrong impression to some readers who are unaware that most of the world's glaciers are receding. Were you aware that most of the world's glaciers are receding?

You wrote "... see new glaciers building up around Europe, even in Great Britain."

Are you suggesting that there is a trend of ice gain (over all) among the glaciers in Europe, or are you only suggesting that a few might be growing, leaving the possibility that most of them could be retreating?

Most European glaciers are receding, and the overall trend is one of ice loss. Note that some glaciers can grow even as the average temperature warms because warmer temperatures can result in greater precipitation.

I'm assuming that you aren't trying to trick anyone, but I suspect that you have been going to a site that mentions that ice loss among the Himalayan glaciers is currently slow, and mentions that a few glaciers at some locations are growing, but which fails to mention that most of the world's glaciers are receding, and that some of them have already disappeared, which in some cases has forced people to abandon their homes because of a lack of water. Have you considered that a site that provides only select information on the topic (that seems to support only one view), while failing to report on the bulk of the relevant information might be trying to trick you?


Kristian Fredriksson:

PS Below is a link to an article about Himalayan glaciers that sites several studies instead of just one. It gives a somewhat different impression than that one study. Regardless, Himalayan glaciers are not necessarily typical of glaciers throughout the world.



"cites" not "sites"


Kristian Fredriksson:

PPS Note that the study that you posted covers only one decade. Such a short period may not reflect the long term trend. One of the favorite techniques in pseudo-science is to derive a long term trend on a cherry-picked short time interval (the authors of the study that you posted don't make that mistake). Do you think maybe this is why your source site posted this study, but failed to post so many other studies (such as studies over longer periods of time that showed different results)? The scientists who wrote the paper that you posted even stated that this decade shows a slower rate of decline in ice compared to earlier periods, and that a 10 year period may be too short of a time span:

"From the aforementioned discussion and the results of the present study it can be inferred that the number and rate of glacier retreat have come down in the last decade compared to the results of other studies carried out for a period prior to 2001. ... It may happen that an interval of one decade could be smaller than the response time of glaciers to be reflected in terms of any significant change with 23.5m spatial resolution of data. This point requires further studies using high-resolution data for a longer interval of time."

Mike H

For years I have heard the proposition that the disappearance of sea ice produces a significant positive feedback which will accelerate melting and global warming in general. I think I understand the mechanism. However, it has occurred to me that this feedback might be somewhat limited, as the timing of maximum solar insolation occurs much before the maximum amount of open water in the Arctic.

Also, the increase in open water in fall and early winter produces a negative feedback due to extra release of heat to space.

Has anybody tried to estimate the net effects of these two feedbacks ? That is, how much extra ice volume should be lost in spring/summer due to reduced ice area of say, 1 million km2 between 70-80 N ? And how much extra ice volume should be gained due to a similar decrease of ice area during fall/early winter ?

I have tried to follow the math of various forcings but find myself overwhelmed, given that short-term noise (wind and ocean currents, other effects of weather) tend to dominate the action in any given year.

Chris Reynolds

Right, I'll try to wade through the carp to salvage something of interest (WTF have the Himalaya got to do with the Arctic - unless we're talking Rossby wave breaking???).


I've heard others say the same sort of thing. I've also noticed areas of apparently no ice on MODIS that have ice in NSIDC. Two things to note:

1) The CAA has always been tricky because there is so much coast, coast presents problems with the sensors, looking at raw NSIDC Concentration data there is generally ice shown all around the UK - now we know that isn't there. NSIDC mask out this data, but it is possible the mask doesn't catch all such spurious data.

2) In the area of the CAA an NSIDC grid box is typically around 640kmsq in area. That's 25 X 24 km. It is conceivable that you could fly over a grid box and not be able to see the entire grid box - I'm not 100% convinced about that but it is a possibility.

Actually I'll add another:
3) No remote sensing product is perfect, even different sea ice products from the same platform give different figures. My solution to this is rather amateurish, I stick to one product on the assumption that whatever problems apply now apply in the past. So at least comparisons in time are likely to catch changes.

It is possible that 2014 has been overestimated, but my guess is it will be a small effect. I am by no means as expert as the Polar Science Team, but I process the gridded PIOMAS data they provide and, frankly, spend an unhealthy amount of time sat at my laptop playing around with data extracted from the gridded data. When there is an inconsistency, such as that which led Dr Zhang to re-work to V2.1, I tend to notice it too (I did with that). I've got lots of oddities I can't explain, but all look like problems with my comprehension, not the model. Personally I don't think PIOMAS is wrong this year. I'm looking at the atmosphere for the answer as to why 2014 was such a boring melt season.

Chris Reynolds


You're no dolt. You allow the evidence to form your opinion, that's a sign of intelligence. :)

NeilT, JD Allen,

Well put. Perhaps it could be put more simply: If people would just drop the political carp and approach the issue of Arctic sea ice loss with an open mind they would find the most exciting area of research in current science.

OK, I'll have to comment on the Himalaya issue. I've never read WG2, I'm interested in the science so I stick to WG1. But if WG2 is anything as big as the WG1 (The scientific basis report) to find a screw up in one paragraph is not surprising. In around 2007 when I was seriously doubting my scepticism I downloaded AR3 WG1 Scientific Basis. Chose about ten pages at random and went through the references to see if they supported the text. Since then I use the Scientific Basis as my first port of call when reasrching something AGW related, it is sound, reliable, and conservative. Like the sort of technical consultant you don't regret hiring.


Mike H - I'd suggest taking your questions on feedback and forcings to the forums (see links to right above). Many of us would be happy to take that discussion up with you.

Robert S


Thanks for the insight. The view I had was pretty good - the whole of the Coronation Gulf, for instance, so I'm pretty sure about the discrepancy. That being said, I agree that the high probability is that it is a systematic error which would not invalidate to relative values, and that this year is all about the weather. A review of time series remote sensing products from the last few years makes it pretty clear that there is more ice this year, although I am a little skeptical that there is as much more ice as PIOMAS is indicating.

One really interesting thing that was very visible from the air was the embedment of blue ice (I presume glacial) in chunks throughout the ice pack, even far from any glacial source - really gave some context to the amount of ice movement over the years.


one question from a long-time lurker. I find the PIOMAS trend line misleading. While 1979 matches up with the beginning of satellite tracking - it also matches up with several consecutive years of pretty cold weather. The starting point is elevated to the point of exageration. The first 15 years are somewhat flat. What we really have is a 20 year trend (or less) - which is now showing signs of a rebound. i am sure this is just a straightline fit to the data - but still very misleading in my view. At the very least - the downward slope of the first 15 years is much smaller than the last 20. I would be interested in thoughts on this as this has always bothered me.


BDS, it was a lot colder in the Arctic in the 1960s. The 1979 date is not cherry picked nor is there any reason to suspect that it starts at a high point compared to the '60s.

In the first half of the '90s there were multiple years of very strongly positive AO values. The positive AO brought warm Atlantic water in to the Arctic.


D, 1979 is a peak year in ice coverage of the arctic.

[Snip, this sentence makes absolutely no sense in conjunction with the previous sentence. Please, refrain from interjecting off-topic, discussion derailing arguments; N.]

Yes I am a "denier" and i come here every month to see the data and view the analysis.


D - that is not true. The end of the 1970s was the end to an extended period of low temperatures in the arctic. I assume, as noted above, that sea ice was at a very high point. Regardless - a straight line for that data at that starting point is very misleading. Calling it a 35 year trend is misleading. What we are dealing with is 20 years at most.



And from the 1990 IPCC report.


Reference page 224 from the 1990 IPCC report.

Sea ice extent bottomed in 1974 and rose substantially over the next 5 years peaking in 1979.


Sorry Planet8788, I don't see where the article "An Analysis of Arctic Sea Ice Fluctuations, 1953-77"

Demonstrates lower values in ice coverage prior to 1979. You need to take a closer look at the graphs in the paper. If you went back a few more years, you'd see coverage values during the mid 60's as high or higher than those in the late 70's. You would also see the average minimums they publish for the whole period are a full 2 million KM3 higher than they are currently.

Do. Your. Homework.


Ack. Neven pls correct - 2 million KM*2*

Rob Dekker

BDS and planet 8788, here is summer sea ice extent by Walsch and Chapman :


which puts your argument of an uptick from 1974 to 1979 into some well deserved perspective.

Any other fake skeptical arguments you want to bring up ?

Rob Dekker

Kristian Fredriksson said

What is wrong with this study? One or two arguments please.

This study finds that from the Himalayan glaciers they analyzed, 248 are receding while only 18 are expanding.
No argument there, since it is consistent with prior research.

The problem is with the 1752 glaciers that the report as "stable".
Note that 1453 of these (a whopping 83 %) are smaller than 3 km^2, and 914 of these (about half) is even smaller than 1 km^2. Now remember there spacial resolution is 25 meter or so.
Take your average 1 km^2 glacier of 100 meter wide and 10 km long, and you find that these small glaciers would have to have melted 25 % over the past 10 year to be classified as "receding".

In other words, the bulk of the glaciers in this study should be discarded, since the study's resolution is way too high, as actually the authors themselves admit (sort of).

That is ONE argument against this study.

There are many more questions you should ask about this paper, many of which YOU should be able to answer yourself if you would just :




Figure 7.20 on page 224 in the 1990 IPCC report is from NOAA covers 1970 to 1990 and shows a 2 million square mile kilometer changes in sea ice area from 1974 to 1979. I am assuming this is based on some observational data.

[Assumption is the mother of all f***-ups.]

Your blog "reference" appears to be base it's graph on "proxy data" reconstruction from Kinnard et al.

[I don't believe it does. Do your homework.]

Furthermore there are lots of reports about the Arctic lacking ice throughout recent history.

[But none talk of the passages opening up completely several years in a row, or sailing past 85N.]

Skeptical science and you need to take up your arguments with NOAA. There was a global cooling scare in the 1970's. Scientists at that time probably had a reason.

[Please, stop believing and, more importantly, spreading that piece of mythinformation; N.

John Christensen

Chris wrote:

"I'm looking at the atmosphere for the answer as to why 2014 was such a boring melt season."

The question is really, whether you find the primary driver of change is weather or AGW. Let me illustrate:

A - Moderate/weather perspective: 2007 was a special melt year with excessive transport via Fram combined with very high in-situ melting in Beaufort caused by high pressure and weather conditions overall. 2007 was then followed by a number of years (2008, 2010, 2011, and 2012) with highly negative NAO during summer months, bringing excessive heat and moisture to the Arctic, widening the sea ice loss established in 2007.
This summer:
Since the ice-loss of 2007-2012 was excessive due to special conditions in place, it would only require normal atmospheric and weather conditions for the sea ice to regain some of the excessive volume lost in prior years.


B. AGW superceeding weather: 2007 was finally the evidence that Arctic sea ice cannot withstand the onslaught of additional heat accumulated in the atmosphere and oceans due to AGW. This was inevitable. Subsequent ice loss until 2012 only confirmed this, and shows Arctic sea ice loss accelerating due to the loss of MYI and overall poor compactness/integrity of the ice pack.
This summer:
Requires identifying the special conditions allowing ice volume loss June-September to be the lowest since 1996.

While it should be clear to all that AGW is changing our climate (Well, not clear to all, as we see above), the overall recognition of increased forcing due to increase in CO2 does not help to understand inter-year changes, so I lean towards point A, when trying to understand what is happening each specific year, making it different or similar to other years.

Also, I would note that summer volume loss in the 1990s was taking place at lower latitudes than now due to the higher extent numbers back then, so also in this respect it is not surprising to me that the remaining ice will have a certain level of protection due to its position in the high north.
People seem to expect a sudden crash of Arctic sea ice in front of their eyes, but consider that even with the increase in volume this year, we have witnessed a reduction in volume of 40% from 2001 to 2014, which is alarming.

To conclude, IMO this boring melting season saw an increase in sea ice volume due to the absence of special atmospheric conditions, weather or current. A small recovery, but not changing the longterm path towards an ice-free Arctic.

John Christensen

And a note to counter my reliance on placing a lot of weight on simple indices like the NAO:


We have NAO slightly positive, which should reduce moisture transport to the Arctic, but note the stationary low west of France/Spain and the high across North-Western Europe, which in the coming days will lead to the opening of a highway of Atlantic heat and moisture to the Arctic region in spite of the NAO index.

This shows just how difficult it is to analyze past weather patterns without looking at the weather surrounding the Arctic in great detail.


i had looked at the IPCC report (graphs and report) as well as surface temperature graphs and other information. the IPCC report is now a fake and skeptical?

regardless of the above - my point remains. the straight line fit to the 1979 - current sea ice anomoly trend is misleading. it creates the appearance of a pretty steady and drastic change over a 35 year period and that clearly isn't what has taken place.


BDS, Back in 1990, the IPCC actually published data that didn't agree with it's main reason for being... that happens less and less every year especially as we start cooling.


Nice assertions. When did the IPCC retract that data. I posted a link to it. You can see it for yourself.

What other data is it going to have besides proxy data? There weren't satellites? I don't think logs were kept 1000 years ago.


And Rob, there was a global cooling scare in the 1970's. Read the NY Times archives.

Chris Reynolds


Read Lindsay & Zhang, 2004, The Thinning of Arctic Sea Ice, 1988–2003: Have We Passed a Tipping Point?
My blog post on that paper is here:

L&Z find (fig 3) a small increase in Arctic Ocean thickness from around 2.5m in 1950 to around 3.25 in 1987. By 2004 thickness is down to 2m. Annual average thickness.


Walsh and Johnson 1978, yes I have previously read it. Your point in linking to it?

1) Check out figure 8. What does that tell you? What would the situation look like using data for the last 20 years? The changes during the 1953 to 1977 period have marked spatial variability. Whereas since 1995 there has been a marked decline of extent in all regions.

2) Check out figure 5. That does not show that 1979 is a high point, in fact that study shoes that the 24 month running mean is greater over the period 1965 to 1973. Yes the overall trend over that period is up, no, that does not mean 1979 is a high point.

3) Stop wasting my time.

4) er...

5) that's it.

Chris Reynolds


I agree.

The position A is however somewhat limited, it neglects the critical role of preferrential loss of thick ice (first year ice volume is increasing) and the role that this has had in facilitating ice loss events like 2007 and 2012. Note that there are other volume loss events as big as 2007 (and 2010 - which was not associated with area/extent loss event).
This is because those earlier volume losses happened with thicker ice, so they were not able to reveal open water leading to massive area/extent losses.

The role of AGW is in the long term volume loss, and most of this volume loss has come from loss of older thicker ice. The role of weather driven events like 2007 is in 'taking advantage' of thinner ice.

Turning to this year, there are factors such as the Greenland ridging and low/high pressures between Siberian coast and the central pack, both associated with the strong Arctic Dipole between 2007 and 2012. The presence of those factors this year (to me at least) seriously begs the question 'what was different in 2014?'

Chris Reynolds

Good Lord, how did I miss it. PlanetDufus is repeating the Global Cooling scare in the 1970s carp....

The Myth of The Global Cooling Consensus. Peterson, Connelly, Fleck, 2008, BAMS.

Numbers of scientific papers published citing Warming, Neutral, and Cooling.

"In July 1979 in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, Jule Charney, one of the pioneers of climate modeling, brought together a panel of experts under the U.S. National Research Council to sort out the state of the science. The panel’s work has become iconic as a foundation for the enterprise of climate change study that followed (Somerville et al. 2007). Such reports are a traditional approach within the United States for eliciting expert views on scientific questions of political and public policy importance (Weart 2003). In this case, the panel concluded that the potential damage from greenhouse gases was real and should not be ignored. The potential for cooling, the threat of aerosols, or the possibility of an ice age shows up nowhere in the report. Warming from doubled CO2 of 1.5°–4.5°C was possible, the panel reported. While there were huge uncertainties, Verner Suomi, chairman of the National Research Council’s Climate Research Board, wrote in the report’s foreword that he believed there was enough evidence to support action: “A wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late” (Charney et al. 1979). Clearly, if a national report in the 1970s advocates urgent action to address global warming, then the scientific consensus of the 1970s was not global cooling."

So who was talking about an ice age - the press, as you imply with your reference to the NYT. It was not a consensus amongst scientists.

You believe the scare stories you read in the press, imprinted with your own bias from your choice of newspaper. I'll continue to read the actual scientific papers and make up my own mind.

Chris Reynolds

Hell, four replies in a row...


I'm not doubting what you say, it's anecdotes like yours that I use to caution myself against getting to concerned with small differences in area/extent/volume. As for the reality of th PIOMAS volume increase. Most of it is in the Central Arctic (Cryosphere Today regions). In ASCAT (a type of satellite radar) multi-year ice shows up as white, first year ice shows up as greyer.

I'll be checking there to compare PIOMAS ice over 2m thick in December and/or in January, if PIOMAS is right then the mass of thicker ice around that time should agree in shape with the white area in ASCAT around that time.

Robert S


I agree that my observations were 100% anecdotal - I'm just interested in trying to understand the modelling relationship between NSIDC data and PIOMAS, and how that relates to the statistical error range on the PIOMAS model. The error range in reports I have seen is fairly wide, and there is always a risk in ecological modelling of ongoing error propagation through time steps. In theory the NSIDC data should help to damp that propagation, but if there is an error in the NSIDC data...

Your review of PIOMAS vs ASCAT sounds like a great approach - looking forward to the results.


I'm a bit tired and don't have a lot of time. Next commenter who regurgitates fake skeptic zombie myths, will be shown the door.

Chris Reynolds


You can see what you think from a previous post comparing PIOMAS, ASCAT, and the Drift Age Model, here:

QuikScat was the previous system before ASCAT. If you scroll below the text on this link you'll see a sequence from 2000 comparing QuikScat in January and PIOMAS in January.

I use January because any ice that is over 2m in Dec/Jan is very likely to be multi year ice because first year ice hasn't had the time to thicken to 2m by that stage in the winter.

L. Hamilton

Regarding estimates of early-1970s September sea ice extent, I took a shot at this for the graph on this blog's long-term page, also here:

As noted within the graph, my 1972-78 values derive from Cavalieri et al. (2003), after regression adjustment to harmonize with 1979-2013 NSIDC values based on their years of overlap (1979-2002). FWIW the Uni Bremen extent series also extended back to 1972, with values quite similar to mine, so I suspect they used the same source.


The rebound continues.

It is no surprise for us who live here in the Scandinavian Sub-Arctic.

Winters were becoming steadily milder during the 1990's but then it all changed around 2007 or thereabouts.

And it changed quite sharply and decidedly towards colder winters with more snowfall.

This has persisted until last year, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it again this year.

Here is the winter temps in Norway for the last 115 years.

There is no drama, and there has been a recent downturn, similar to the downturn after the peak of the 1930's.

So what is the reason for this downturn?

There are theories of course, changes in pressure systems, jet streams, changes in albedo, changes in ocean currents, but ultimately, noone knows.

From my observations as an Arcic denizen, I think that we have been through one of these "tipping points" again, a turning point, and that we will now see another protracted period of recovery of the Arctic sea ice.


Here is the temperatures for Norway, by the way.

There was an obvious peak around 2004/2005, and a downturn from there.


George Phillies

Meanwhile in the recent half year temperatures in Antarctica have in some areas been running 20 not 2.0 20 degrees C above historical average.

Also, on the scale of the Bremen map -- but perhaps not if you put a boat in the water -- the southernmost northwest passage appears to be open.


George Phillies:

1. Antarctica is a vast continent. Short-lived, above-average temperatures, somewhere on that continent, presumably on the Antarctic Peninsula, which has allready been noted to be especially influenced more by the ocean currents than any real changes in temperature. The fact remains that Antarctic ice is growing.

2. Is the NW passage open? If all it takes is for some lightweight craft to sneak through during optimal conditions, aided by modern GPS and sattelite forcasting systems, then, perhaps.

In that case the NW passage will be more open every year, no matter what weather- and/or ice conditions there might be.


A couple of years ago a norwegian light catamaran navigated both the northern sea route and the NW passage in one calendar year.

It was presented in the media around the globe as a result of an ever shrinking ice cap.

Not a word about the hi-tech, lightweight catamaran which was in fact able to sail across solid ice with a slick of sun melted water on top.

It was new technology that made the trip possible, Not new melting. But it all was great propaganda for the melting story.

Propaganda that no warming advocate bothers to check or to make any fuss about.

That's why the warmist establishment is not trusted: there is no will to even check a story or a scientific paper that supports one's own point of view.


It is true.


Most of us who have been involved in science one way or another don't trust media reports and we carefully review papers on subjects we work on. Most scientists working on sea ice have been very careful not to make predictions of its rapid disappearance in summer because they are very aware of natural variability.

I'm glad that PIOMAS is showing recovery. Global methane levels continue to rise and the reports of large plumes of methane rising to the surface of the Arctic are very concerning to me. Maybe the 2 year sea ice recovery will buy us a little time on Arctic methane releases.


This is exactly it.

One thinks one is "involved in science", but sadly, one is just a sheep, following the wooly ass in front of one self.


Pathetic and self-serving people.

I am sorry.



After many glances I cant really make out a quite a recovery ! May be
one should look at archives more often. Say 1984 or 94:


not even 2004 or 2009:


Note to contrarian, the green areas are less than 50% coverage, and yes, the Northwest passage is open, even large enough to reveal an important mystery literally hidden for 166 years by perineal ice which is no more.



How do you decide which people have arrived at a view on a given scientific issue because they are "sheep" and which people have arrived at a view on a given scientific issue based on evidence? How accurate do you believe your method is, and have you found a way to test it?

I can give examples of various scientific issues upon request.


Thank you for sharing your superiority with us, Ostepop. Now back to WUWT you go, to converse with the scientific-minded elite.

Rob Dekker

Neven, I'm not sure if I'm going out on a limb here, but with the creation of the forum, it seems that you have diverted the best, and most serious scientific crowd sourcing work to the sideline, only to leave your main blog open to abuse by septics.

Rob Dekker

If I can make one suggestion, Neven ?

Create one forum entry for comments that contain ad hominems and insults (your call). Just dump the whole comment in there, and replace the comment with a pointer to the forum entry.

Then create a forum entry for a known myth, and drop each comment that advertises that myth into that thread.

That way, you remove all off-topic distractions on your main blog, but posters still have their comments available and other people can still comment on them.
Away from your main blog threads.

All of this at your discretion.

John Christian Lønningdal

I see the "dolts" are out in great force regurgitating WTFUWT nonsense again. :)

Neven, I frequently read your blog here, but its becoming hard to find information in the comments here. I suggest people stop feeding the trolls and replying to all the silly myths at least.

Rob Dekker

Chris Reynolds said :

Greenland 500mb GPH is back up to similar levels as the 2007 to 2012 years. Also the 'summer pattern' correlation makes 2014 look like a 2007 to 2012 year. But the temperature for JJA was around the same as 2013, and well below the typical for summer in the 2000s.

With that statement, Chris, I think you perfectly summarized the issue this year.

Why were the temperatures in the Arctic at 2013 level this summer while pressure data suggest it should be a 2007 or 2012 year ?

There are good responses to that from various posters above, but no conclusive explanations.

Did anyone look at the stratosphere ?
Or may it be a combination of factors (small melting ponds in May, compact ice etc) ?

Either way, remember that all we are trying to do is finding the 'trend' line by putting bounds on summer variability...


A couple of years ago a norwegian light catamaran navigated both the northern sea route and the NW passage in one calendar year.

It was presented in the media around the globe as a result of an ever shrinking ice cap.

Not a word about the hi-tech, lightweight catamaran which was in fact able to sail across solid ice with a slick of sun melted water on top.

It was new technology that made the trip possible, Not new melting. But it all was great propaganda for the melting story.

Propaganda that no warming advocate bothers to check or to make any fuss about.

That's why the warmist establishment is not trusted: there is no will to even check a story or a scientific paper that supports one's own point of view.

From the context you are apparently talking about Ousland and his yacht "Northern Passage", in which case your accusations are wrong, no such sailing over ice occurred. Time for you to check your facts:

Remko Kampen

"Here is the temperatures for Norway, by the way." said one Ostepop1000.

Well, we decided to not go to this country in summer anymore. Last year was already bad but this year was unbearable.
Entire forests are dying or have already died from the crazy drought and heat.
Sun doesn't set at night. No airco. Be my guest, try it.


Is that the 2014 temperature average through August as compared to annual averages?

K Z.

@Greg Wellman,

I tried to find out if there was a way to message you directly, but I did not see a way. I hope my answer to your question isn't further moving things off-topic. Neven, if you find my post inappropriate to this venue, please delete.

In answer to your question of why I am not particularly worried about global warming (starting with my most inflammatory belief!)?

(1) I do not believe the most dire and most extreme estimates for the negative impact of AGW. I realize this is 100% disputable, this is just my personal belief. I do not believe temperatures will rise as much as some IPCC claims, and I do also not think we can predict the impact of temperature rises enough to know where they would be positive or negative. Again, not scientific, just my belief.

(2) If you believe many estimates of untapped fossil fuel reserves--even with the probably short-lived addition of fracking to the picture--what do we have? 50 years? 100 years? 200 years?--of using fossil fuels at the same pace was are currently. The blink of an eye in geologic time. That's the potential for a whole lot of emissions, but, an end is in sight whether we want to stop using fossil fuels or not.

(3) Years ago, I watched an interesting video by Chris Martenson on "peak everything," the eventual scarcity of many natural resources, and exponential curves. He makes some interesting points and has some interesting charts and graphics, but I feel ultimately he completely underestimates human ingenuity and discovery. I have been told by a friend in the industry that consumer solar panel technology improves by about 3% efficiency every year. That means in around twenty years (and barring any unexpected huge leaps forward), just sticking to improvements in silicon and the relationship to Moore's law, solar panels will be twice as efficient as they are today. I ran the numbers for me and my business--in my state and location, solar doesn't make sense economically. At some point, that calculus will change dramatically and everyone will start switching to alternative energy sources not because of government mandates or environmental altruism but because of self-interest. Let me put it this way--I would not be investing in any power companies that rely on fossil fuel based plants right now!

I also think that there is a huge potential for sequestration or other carbon recycling technologies to come online. Battery technology is yet another field that has the potential to see large improvements. In 20 years what percentage of cars and buses worldwide will be electric?

(4) To some degree, worrying is just fruitless. I could do absolutely everything in my power (and I do try to live as carbon neutral as possible--I have about 500 sq feet of organic garden in my backyard), everyone in the EU and the US could make huge changes, and any drop in CO2 emissions would still be swamped by the rising emissions from China, India, and the inevitable next rise from the increasing industrialization and population growth in Africa.

(5) To the degree that I do worry, I'm very concerned about other (non-carbon) forms of pollution, deforestation, maintaining green spaces and wild spaces as urban and suburban areas continue to expand, water quality issues, and so forth. Perhaps myopic, but something that I can help make a difference with.

Take it with a big "IMO"!

Lord Soth

This is my second post this year. Back in the spring I predicted, no matter how bad the weather got (for ice melting), you would never see ice extents over 5 million km^2 as long as CO2 continued rise (based on IJIS Ver 2)

While I was almost proven wrong, but today IJIS finally squeaked below 5 million km^2.

I used to post a lot, however I have come to realize that despite the fact that the trend is towards zero arctic ice. Natural variability with the orientation of the Arctic Oscillation, and the Dipole anomaly is going to decide the next minimum.

The last two years, Mother Nature threw the dice and we won/lost depending on how you look at things. Next year Mother Nature will again throw the dice, and we could be looking at a new minimum, or another year like 2013 or 2014.

However with the increase, in CO2, eventually the roll of the dice will make little or no difference to an ice free arctic, just the date that is happens.

So better/worse luck next year depending if you are an optimist, defeatist or have just given up and became a realist :)

Kevin McKinney

Wow, quite the outbreak of zombie trolls. Too bad, but that's life. IMO, there is no need to whack every mole at length here; perhaps the creation of ASIB 'borehole' or it equivalent (the forum subhead idea isn't bad) is warranted.

It almost (but not quite) makes me hesitate to link to something OT but interesting, already referred to be wayne above: the discovery of one of Franklin's lost ships. (They haven't been able to tell, yet, whether it's the Erebus or the Terror.)


According to the story, there's an irony here, in that the relatively greater ice coverage of much of the NWP this year helped the discovery, by eliminating more northerly potential search areas, and thus concentrating attention a bit more where this wreck was found.


Kevin, true enough, but its more like if sea ice that killed the expedition was still there, they wouldn't have found one of the ships. If you look at all historical maps and of course sat data, McClintock channel ice was fierce and scary, prompted Nansen and many others to navigate East of King William Island channel. Now , in recent years even today, ships can zip through west of King William Island. Arctic secrets are revealed by the disappearing ice.


Amundsen not Nansen ...

Kevin McKinney

"...if sea ice that killed the expedition was still there, they wouldn't have found one of the ships."


It's a fascinating story all 'round, and I'll be looking for followups. Of course, as regulars here have probably sussed out, I'm a bit of a sucker for history.

Neven, I'm not sure if I'm going out on a limb here, but with the creation of the forum, it seems that you have diverted the best, and most serious scientific crowd sourcing work to the sideline, only to leave your main blog open to abuse by septics.

The forum definitely plays a role, but I think it's also because of the 'boring' melting season (would be far from boring just 10 years ago) and because I'm not blogging as much as I should. That last reason is also a bit because of the Forum, because I now have to read 10 times as many comments as I used to here. :-)

The reason a couple of people have now shown up who are convinced that the chances that AGW could serious problems is zero, obviously has to do with this second rebound year. This is only logical, and I will even let their comments stand, especially if they concern Arctic sea ice, but my patience for proven misinformation and disparaging broad brush generalisations has just about run out.

Create one forum entry for comments that contain ad hominems and insults (your call). Just dump the whole comment in there, and replace the comment with a pointer to the forum entry.

Then create a forum entry for a known myth, and drop each comment that advertises that myth into that thread.

That way, you remove all off-topic distractions on your main blog, but posters still have their comments available and other people can still comment on them.
Away from your main blog threads.

Good idea, Rob, but too much work. At one point I'll just block people, like I've done twice before in the past 5 years (if memory serves me well).

Chris Reynolds


I've looked at the stratosphere with regards the 2007 to 2012 period, but found little conclusive. My hunch remains that the Greenland ridging is a central issue, either a parallel result of the same underlying causal issue, or an element of cause itself.

I've not done the math yet. But I have previously taken average GPH500 north of 20 degN (IIRC) and subtracted it from the Greenland GPH to get an idea of the behaviour of the Greenland ridge when adjusted for the overall rising of the atmosphere with AGW. The result is a striking jump in GPH at 500mb over Greenland.

I am still working on this problem.

Jai Mitchell

If you want to know why 2014 was cold, look to the Pacific

full image here:

In 2013 I observed a strange blocking pattern that worked both to push latent water vapor into the Arctic Circle through the Bearing Straight and to help force the jet stream northward above California, causing a terrible drougt. I noticed that when this pattern set up, it seemed to coincide with cooler arctic temperatures (I think producing more fog and low pressure systems in the CAB)

So I attempted to document these patterns this year in the forum.


Day 130-139

A major pacific blocking pattern has established in the north east pacific, it is causing a significant push of warm water-laden air into the arctic via the bearing strait. This push into the arctic is also causing the mother's day blizzard in Colorado.

This pattern set up last week and looks to be strengthening.


This kind of activity led to significant increases in storms over the arctic last year, bringing much cooler temperatures and helped to retain ice volumes.


Day 154

A new low pressure system has buttressed up against the persistent high in the north east pacific.

This new blocking pattern has begun to push considerable precipitable water up through the Bearing Straight. Nearly identically to the May 10th Pattern.

today's pattern: http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/06/03/0900Z/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/overlay=total_precipitable_water/equirectangular=-171.42,71.05,967

Note that the intensity of the moisture transport into the CAB from this new system is about 1/3 the volume of the May 10th system so less effect should be seen compared to striking drop into below average temperatures that the may 10th pattern produced:


Day 164

High elevation jet stream moisture moving from the north pacific up over Alaska and feeding into the low pressure system dominating the Central Arctic Basin (CAB).

(image shows total precipitable water - darker colors = more moisture vapor)


day 232

Blocking Systems in North Pacific Continue to Force Mid-Latitude Water Vapor into the Arctic

a combination of high/low pressure blocking systems just south of the bearing straight is once again moving mid-latitude water vapor into the arctic. As shown previously this has been a reliable indicator for increased cloudcover and reduced temperatures during the summer months (and increased temperatures during the winter months).


if this trend is a reliable indicator then we should see temperature and melt reductions over the next 3 days or so.

I did not provide this analysis on a daily basis, only when it seemed like a good time to check the data. However, I feel that I have captured, quite clearly, a significant mechanism that may have produced this cooler melt season, as I observed it to do last year.

I feel that this is also causing the changes in precipitation and heat/cool patterns in the U.S. with far below average temperatures east of the rockies but much warmer (and drier) conditions west of the rockies.

I have an additional question I would like to have answered, is it AT ALL possible that this weather pattern could be the result of some kind of geoengineering process?

Note that the cooling periods were almost strategically timed. Even the day 130 coinciding with last year's drop in temperatures.

I, of course, have absolutely no idea of the technological potential for this possibility. (geoengineering high/low pressure placements)

The comments to this entry are closed.