Arctic ice levels hit historic low?

Arctic temperatures and Arctic ice extent varies in a very predictable 60-70 year cycle, explains meteorologist.

According to this article on CNN, the amount of Arctic sea ice has melted to a historic low, with the area of land covered by ice at the smallest level since scientists began observing it with satellites in 1972. This information came from researchers at the University of Bremen in Germany.

“It seems to be clear that this is a further consequence of the man-made global warming with global consequences,” the article continues. (So much for unbiased reporting.)

“So who is telling the truth?” asks reader Thomas O’Hara. “I have never understood the glass is half full versus the glass is half empty. Either there is less ice or more ice. Which is it, really?”

“How can someone look at the same thing, seeing the same numbers, and come up with a completely different explanation?” asks Thomas. “Either the ice is getting thicker and there is a greater need for ice breakers in the northern hemisphere, or the ice is getting thinner and we can sail tankers through to Prudhoe Bay without fear, but it can’t be both.”

(Thomas is referring to the fact that Sweden endured so much sea ice during the past two winters that they’ve recalled their largest icebreaker from the Antarctic.)

Other than the fact that the media likes to scream about melting sea ice after a long, hot summer when the ice is – of course – at its lowest extent for the year, I think meteorologist Joe D’Aleo explains it the best.

“Temperatures in the arctic have indeed risen in recent years and ice has declined, bottoming out in 2007 but it is not unprecedented nor unexpected.” says D’Aleo.

But is this a consequence of man-made global warming? No. It’s part of a natural cycle.

“The arctic temperatures and arctic ice extent varies in a very predictable 60-70 year cycle that relates to ocean cycles which are likely driven by solar changes,” says D’Aleo.

“In 2007, NASA scientists reported that after years of research, their team had assembled data showing that normal, decade-long changes in Arctic Ocean currents driven by a circulation known as the Arctic Oscillation was largely responsible for the major Arctic climate shifts observed over the past several years.”

So there you go, Thomas. Yes, the ice has been melting. But are humans to blame? No.

I think we’ll see the Sweden experience of the past two winters being repeated in more and more areas in the coming years.

See entire article by meteorologist Joe D’Aleo:
“Arctic Temperatures and Ice – Why it is All About Natural Variability”

18 thoughts on “Arctic ice levels hit historic low?”

  1. The more false info global warmest can spread the more money they can make make with there scam. Thats the way it works in scam.

  2. All I know is up in Portland they had the hottest first half of September ever on record which now has an average of 89 degrees.

    THAT’S RIGHT. Eight Nine point Zero degrees verses the average high of the upper 70s and todays ocean layer only made the smokey skies worse rather then clearing out the air.

    I am unsure about it being man made but even if it is that’s still no excuse for carbon cuts as that won’t solve a damn thing and just make more people mad making more job losses *except for the lobbyists who support this crap*.

    The article said it is the LOWEST EVER not the highest ever so please re read that article. Thanks!

    Some people do not know how to read and need to take reading school again. :p

  3. Model runs did play with the idea of cooler and wetter weather for a short bit but is now back to entertaining another hot spell for our area.

    If this keeps up I wouldn’t be surprised if we beat the infamous October 1988 hot weather where it’s the only October known to get into the 90s thanks to good ol down slope winds fanning in hot air.

    However come winter and we are in this pattern I hope it brings butt cold air when we get into the cold east wind season.

  4. “In 2007, NASA scientists reported that after years of research, their team had assembled data showing that normal, decade-long changes in Arctic Ocean currents driven by a circulation known as the Arctic Oscillation was largely responsible for the major Arctic climate shifts observed over the past several years.”

    and Hancuffs hansen (3rd arrest in near as many months) keeps spouting the fear and flooding rants, and HE works for Nasa..??Space section supposedly.
    the space is BETWEEN his EARS!

  5. Arctic Sea Ice melts during the summer “melt season”, it is compressed, by wind and ocean currents and transported out of the Arctic basin (Fram Street) into warmer regions.

    This is an entirely natural process completely beyond our control.

    To make predictions about the Arctic summer sea ice extent is like playing Bingo.

    Sometimes you win but most of the time you loose.

    From a scientific and long term climate point of view sea summer sea ice extent is entirely irrelevant.

    Arctic sea ice extent and the well being of the polar bears is nothing more but a propaganda tool used by the AGW zealots. Period.

    Well documented natural fluctuations in ice extent have happened in the past when CO2 levels were lower than today.

    The late Great John L. Daly, one of the first skeptic bloggers tackled the subject of Arctic ice melt a long time ago and all the information he collected is still valid.

    Just give it a read because the information completely destroys the alarmist propaganda.

  6. They are blaming their “global warming” on everything. Colder, hotter, rain, drought and earthquakes, everything is always our fault!
    Here is to Al Gore % Co: ┌∩┐(◕_◕)┌∩┐!!!

  7. Again, if you read the article, it claims Arctic ice this year is a half percent less then 2007. Earlier, I read where not only was Arctic melt less then expected, it also stopped melting earlier then usual. The point I tried to make is how can the same data yield – a) greatest ice melt since satellite measurements, and b) shortest melt season since satellite measurements with less then expected melt? It doesn’t make sense. HOW does one guarantee that the data they are being fed is data at all? “Global warming” has cast a cloak of illegitimacy over all related science, and worse, science in general. I, personally, have gotten to the point where I dismiss 90% of scientific experimental results as questionable until I have found 3 other experiments that at least suggest the possibility. The way “climate crisis” has effected the world is, well, probably as much to whether the Sherpas, when they climb Mt. Everest, spit to the left more often then they do to the right.

  8. We can not forget the hundreds of undersea volcanos and thermo vents that contribute to the ocean temperatures especially around the Arctic.

    • Nita is exactly right. Even during the depths of the last ice age, when most of Canada was buried beneath two miles of ice, “A relatively thin layer of floating ice – about the same as today – covered the Arctic Ocean.” (Not by Fire but by Ice, p. 150)

      There’s no way that could have happened without those underwater volcanoes and thermal vents.

  9. But of course! Global warming causes Global cooling… and global cooling is ALSO caused by Global warming.. or is it the other way around.. errm.. I give up!

  10. Better “…a historic low,” than a historic high.

    The Global Warming Extremists need to get a grip. They complain about not enough land for the supposed “billions” of people on the Earth. Then, they gripe about the ice caps melting and exposing more land..! Sheeesh, give me a break. How’s that saying go … “you can please some of the people none of the time.”

    Given that the Earth has experienced numerous Ice Ages, it should come as no surprise to anyone that ice at the poles reaches historic highs and lows. The same can be said of deserts, rain forests, jungles, swamps, volcanoes … and everything else on the planet. They all experience periods of expansion and retraction. It is all one big cycle … of which we humans have had only a very recent, and ergo, minor role. Or do they suppose that humans somehow are retroactively responsible for all the Ice Ages and disasters of prehistory? (Rumor has it that Alvin the Gorgon is working on a way to do just that..!)

    Seriously? “They” have been monitoring the ice level situation in the Arctic since “1972” and from that skimpy data the Gore-gonians can, with a straight face, make sweeping assumptions regarding the role of humans in global climate change? Presumptuous to the point of absurdity.

    May we be saved from the “collective” stupidity.

    *[That there are “billions” of people on this planet is a seriously debatable assertion. Do some research and you will see this.]

    • *[That there are “billions” of people on this planet is a seriously debatable assertion. Do some research and you will see this.]

      I am somewhat amused and amazed at this statement. The last I saw, the world population was definitely in excess of 2 billion – say by about 3 billions but who’s counting, right? If ANY amount in excess of 2 billion isn’t “billions,” I am not sure there is any reason to consider anything as it would require common sense to actually have died, like the email joke implies.

  11. from Mike W posted at Timothy birdnow’s blog

    Give me a Nobel Peace Prize and call me a progressive but I came up with an idea to save the Arctic ice pack and the post office. Everyone under obamacre will be required to send via the post office 100 lbs of ice cubes through the post office to the Arctic. Is this not progessively brilliant? Shouldnt I be on manbearpigs staff? I think at least a czarship on obamaos staff!!!!Vacations,golf, 2 hrs a month work schedule and a 7 figure salary.

  12. Tom,
    If you research the topic you will see that there are many reputable mathematicians who claim that there are nowhere near 5 billion people claimed on the “official” ledgers. But, there are also those who claim the actual number is under 1 billion.

    I added the caveat at the end of my comment so that folks could pursue the topic for themselves and come to their own conclusions. I stated that it is “seriously debatable.” And, there is serious debate on the subject.

    I did not confirm one way or another my personal belief on the subject, although I did allude that I might not agree with the official tally.

    However, I am glad to see that perhaps my comment will cause people to research the subject.

    Search terms such as “population lies,” etc. are a good starting point.

    I am “amused and amazed” that someone as intelligent as you seem to be did not fully comprehend the meaning of my statement.

Comments are closed.