AGW Climate Change Data Global Warming Omniclimate Science Skepticism

Arctic Sea Ice: Animation of Thirty Years

Among the general boredom of reading about the latest awfully hollow “demonstration” that humans are at fault by way of exclusion (and in the process, finding the fingerprint of human-induced rise in temperature in places such as Antarctica where temperature has not risen…unless it’s the Peninsula they are referring to), here some animations of how arctic sea ice has appeared between 1979 and 2008, around October 28, according to Cryosphere Today (note: some years are missing, and for other years I had to take the nearest available image)

Animated Arctic Sea Ice - around Oct 28
Animated Arctic Sea Ice - around Oct 28

You may have to click on the images above to be able to properly see the animated GIFs.

One could be forgiven to think the following:

  • there isn’t much of a polar ice cover “shrinking trend”, but rather a lot of expansions and contractions, plus a freakish small configuration in 2007
  • the 2008 cover is very simiar to 2000’s, apart from an ice-free area East of Novaya Zemlja
  • one can almost sea the warm water flowing in through the Bering Strait, sometimes reaching East as far as Banks Island (1987, 1998)
  • the “losses” in sea ice in the Baltic and northwestern Siberia may or may not relate to a change in data processing between 2003 and 2005

Note how different the last 3 years look, as they include the snow cover exactly when, say, the ice in the White Sea suddenly goes.

0 replies on “Arctic Sea Ice: Animation of Thirty Years”

Sweet blog. I never know what I am going to come across next. I think you should do more posting as you have some pretty intelligent stuff to say.

I’ll be watching you

“People who doubt AGW tend to dismiss the very concept of environmental problems because they think Man is above the laws of nature.”

I think the opposite is true. You think that us spewing CO2 through industry and driving (A NATURAL GAS, that plants breath and we exhale) has MORE effect on the planet’s climate than the Sun, The clouds and the Ocean.

Why do I say that? because current models do NOT track these things at ALL in their calculations.

The climate has ALWAYS been changing, and if you compare CO2 the sun’s solar cycles and our SOLAR SYSTEMS temperature variants you’ll see that ALL The planets (including our own) follow the sun, not CO2 which makes up ~2% of the atmosphere. (seriously, they are measuring it in PARTS PER MILLION.)

And of the ~480 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere not all of it is even generated by MAN~!

here’s the ultimate question though. If CO2 controls Ice melt through “AGW” climate change, what is the “IDEAL” level of CO2 for the world to control the world’s thermostat?


It’s always nice to meet people as judgmental as you appear to be, because it makes the rest of us look so much better…

For the record, I have chosen October because…my post was in October and…we know now that October 2008 has seen the fastest increase in sea ice on record.

By the way…just as with the 2005 hurricane seasons, “the melting trend is what matters” only in the eyes of those looking for evidence of warming.

As for dismissing environmental problems, please do complain about it to people that dismiss environmental problems. One of the problems I have with AGW catastrophism is exactly that it tries to make all environmental problems look puny and inconsequential, compared to turning the planet into a block of hard cinder.

Change the month to August or September (toward the end of the yearly MELTING period) and you’ll see extreme shrinkage over decades. No doubt you cherry-picked October to mislead people. Common tactic among armchair skeptics. The problem is, anyone can access that site and see through the ruse.

Winter will always arrive and create ice & snow unless the planet loses its axial tilt. Winters may never get drastically less severe at the poles, since they are “shaded” the most by said tilt. The melting trend toward the end of the summer is what’s relevant because more ice lost then means a gradually thinning pack that can’t be recovered in winter. Satellite measurements of this very trend made news a week ago.

People who doubt AGW tend to dismiss the very concept of environmental problems because they think Man is above the laws of nature. Many think The Rapture will render it all moot anyhow, so we may as well drill and burn while the drilling and burning is good. It would be interesting to know what particular axe you’re grinding.

David – Your comment is a good example of something that is peculiar to AGW. Whenever a claim is made, if thereafter the same claim is shown false there is always somebody ready to make yet another claim. I am sure when thickness will be shown not to have changed much either, an article will appear claiming the quality of the ice, or its colour, or whatever else is now what it was. And so on and so forth.

The whole sorry hurricanes-are-getting-stronger saga is showing the way…

Your article on Arctic sea ice extent is misleading.

Whilst the extent of coverage may not noticably have varied, the thickness of the ice has been gradually reducing.

This is now translating into significant surface area loss.

Leave a Reply - Lascia un commento

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.