Inconvenient? Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth In September

According to data from The Danish Meteorological Institute, since hitting its earliest minimum extent since 1997, Arctic sea ice has been expanding at a phenomenal rate.

As notalotofpeopleknowthat blog details, it is already greater than at the same date in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2015.

Put another way, it is the fourth highest extent in the last ten years.

Even more remarkably, ice growth since the start of the month is actually the greatest on record, since daily figures started to be kept in 1987.

Experts call this phenomenon the final collapse of sea ice!

*  *  *

While we are sure this is just 'transitory', it appears the 'science' is not as 'settled' as we thought...

Source: Branco


GUS100CORRINA Thu, 09/28/2017 - 13:29 Permalink

Inconvenient? Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth In SeptemberMy response: JACK SLACK or SLACK JACK .... ARE YOU READING THIS???? I HOPE SO!!It is called a SOLAR MINIMUM!! All of you TREE HUGGERS, go AWAY!!!

HenryKissinger… Silvery Dan Thu, 09/28/2017 - 13:37 Permalink

"In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself." <<Aurelio Peccei,Club of Rome:  The First Global Revolution>> 1991

In reply to by Silvery Dan

Slack Jack Froman Thu, 09/28/2017 - 15:28 Permalink

Record-Setting Hurricanes; Record temperatures; Record-Setting Wildfires; ya think it might be global warming?


So, why is the global rise in temperatures so worrisome?

For one thing, as temperatures rise good farmland will become desert (e.g., dust-bowl conditions will probably return to the American Midwest).

Another major problem is sea-level rise.

Have a look at

The U.S. Geological Survey people claim that;

The Greenland ice sheet melting will raise sea-level 6.55 meters (21.5 feet),
the West Antarctica ice sheet melting will raise sea-level 8.06 meters (26.4 feet),
the East Antarctica ice sheet melting will raise sea-level 64.8 meters (212.6 feet),
and all other ice melting will raise sea-level 0.91 meters (3 feet).

For a grand total of about 80 meters (263 feet).

So, what does an 80 meter (263 feet) rise in sea-level mean. Have a look at the following map of the world after an 80 meter rise. It means that over one billion people will have to be resettled to higher ground and that much of the most productive agricultural land will be under water. Fortunately, at current rates, the Greenland ice sheet will take over a thousand years to melt and the Antarctica ice sheet, much longer. However, the greater the temperature rise the faster the ice sheets will melt, bringing the problem much closer. Remember, the huge ice sheet that recently covered much of North America, almost completely melted in only 15,000 years (today, only the Greenland ice sheet, and some other small patches of it, remain). Since then (15,000 years ago), sea-levels have risen about 125 meters (410 feet), only 80 meters to go.

The ice sheets have been continuously melting for thousands of years. What is left of them today, is still melting, and will continue to melt. Human caused global warning will cause this remnant to melt significantly faster. This is a big, big, problem.

For HUGE detailed maps of the "World after the Melt" go to:

Global temperatures are increasing. And by quite a lot each year.

2016 is the hottest year on record for global temperatures.

This is 0.0380 degrees centigrade hotter than the previous record year which was 2015.

0.0380 is a large increase in just one year.

2015 was the hottest year (at that time) for global temperatures.

This was 0.1601 degrees hotter than the previous record year which was 2014.

0.1601 is an absolutely huge increase in just one year (at this rate temperatures would increase by 16 degrees in a century).

2014 was the hottest year (at that time) for global temperatures.

This was 0.0402 degrees hotter than the previous record year which was 2010.

The conspiracy to hide global warming data.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is given tax money to make global temperature records available to the public. However, certain people at NOAA continually sabotage this aspect of NOAA's mandate. For example, these people have (deliberately) sabotaged the web-page that delivers the temperature records.

Look for yourself:

Go to the page: scroll down to the The Global Anomalies and Index Data section and click the download button and see what happens. Well, you get the message:

"Not Found. The requested URL /monitoring-references/faq/anomalies-download was not found on this server."

I guess that the 2017 data must be truly horrible if they have to hide it away.

It turns out that this seems to be the case; NASA reports that:

July 2017 had the hottest average land temperatures on record.

The new July 2017 record was +1.20 degrees centigrade above the 20th century average (of the July data). The previous record average land temperature for July was just last year. It was +1.10 degrees above the 20th century average.

Did the media bother to tell you about this? No!

The average land temperatures for August 2017 are second only to those of last year, August 2016.

In reply to by Froman

PlayMoney Slack Jack Thu, 09/28/2017 - 16:12 Permalink

That isn't temp chart ace, its an anomoly chart you are looking at. Which you can "anomoly" to any years you want to get a result you want. And sea levels have been going DOWN the last 2 years per a NASA report out this year...not up. If temps to rise a bit that means more land to have no idea land will turn to desert. That is precipitation...not temps einstein.

In reply to by Slack Jack

PlayMoney Slack Jack Thu, 09/28/2017 - 16:29 Permalink

All the weather phenominom is easily explained with cosmic rays increasing. We recently had the lowest solar output in 100 years and cosmic ray increses have been measured up 13% in the US in just the last 2 years. Thats a large increase. Weather events are always higher during cosmic ray increase periods.

In reply to by Slack Jack

Gobble D. Goop Slack Jack Fri, 09/29/2017 - 00:24 Permalink

Hi Slack.  As a compassionate reader of Zero Hedge, I feel compelled to ask you to read this and then seek the appropriate level of help.  Otherwise you may be in danger of self destructive behaviour: diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorder is now in it's 5th iteration.  It's certain now there's help for you.And for your own sake, quit listening to Al Gore.  It's making you ill. 

In reply to by Slack Jack

gkampou StackShinyStuff Thu, 09/28/2017 - 15:35 Permalink

The link provided ( actually points to the 2017 data. I still dont see how the data validates the statements in the article. We're skimming pretty much along the bottom in what seems to be the 5th worst year ever, and 28% lower than the alleged minimum in 1997..Data from Sept 24th:<!-- BODY,DIV,TABLE,THEAD,TBODY,TFOOT,TR,TH,TD,P { font-family:"Arial"; font-size:x-small } --> Year Month Day Extent YYYY         MM       DD      10^6 1981 9 24 7.261 1983 9 24 7.425 1984 9 24 7.178 1986 9 24 7.529 1987 9 24 7.571 1988 9 24 7.477 1989 9 24 6.979 1990 9 24 6.125 1991 9 24 6.411 1992 9 24 7.728 1993 9 24 6.52 1994 9 24 7.243 1995 9 24 6.107 1996 9 24 7.901 1997 9 24 6.671 1998 9 24 6.512 1999 9 24 6.535 2000 9 24 6.518 2001 9 24 6.746 2002 9 24 6.007 2003 9 24 6.051 2004 9 24 6.112 2005 9 24 5.351 2006 9 24 5.876 2007 9 24 4.162 2008 9 24 4.692 2009 9 24 5.32 2010 9 24 4.805 2011 9 24 4.68 2012 9 24 3.674 2013 9 24 5.285 2014 9 24 5.253 2015 9 24 4.832 2016 9 24 4.899 2017 9 24 4.851  

In reply to by StackShinyStuff

opport.knocks HenryKissinger… Thu, 09/28/2017 - 15:26 Permalink

Or you can go for the classic literature quint-fecta, and really have bunker buster:- Man Versus Self- Man Versus Society- Man Versus Man- Man Versus Nature- Man Versus Supernatural.From my logical POV, you cannot pump millions of years of trapped solar energy (fossil fuels) out of the ground and into the atmosphere over a period of a couple of hundred years, without some consequences for the climate. Whether these are offset by an increase in the amount of heat radiation into space or simply dwarfed by a factor of 1000+ by natural solar cycles or other effects is the big question. It is also possible that the effects are not as harmful as the climate doomsdayers say or that we just get lucky and it coincides with a prolonged solar minimum.To be safe, I try to be sensible and just conserve. Conservation for it's own sake (and for the children of course).

In reply to by HenryKissinger…

343 Guilty Spark opport.knocks Fri, 09/29/2017 - 07:01 Permalink

The thing is, climate change has been happening since forever.  Antartica has seen dozens of thaws and refreezing periods itself and all of that has nothing to do with humanity.  On a side note, there are fairly cheap ways to help counter increased air pollution and carbon gases without killing jobs or changing lifestyles.  No one every really thought about just planting a fuck ton of high carbon consuming plants in major cities.  Or plants that filter out pollutants like these plants do:… what I am trying to say here is that the climate change movement was never really intended to change anything but rather to increase taxes on various market sectors.  If it was intended to fix things, then cities like New York would have millions of these plants and other low cost, high efficient, and simple methods in use to lower carbon emissions. 

In reply to by opport.knocks

Gorgeous Silvery Dan Thu, 09/28/2017 - 14:33 Permalink

Please expand.This article does not due the topic of artic ice justice.  The "extent" in km2 is seasonal, as the typically truncated axis would show.  The change in ice Mass (kg) is more iimportant.  Because of the phase lag in the global thermal control system, the extent can be shrinking (warm oceans) while the mass is increasing (warm oceans becoming cooler). 

In reply to by Silvery Dan

francis_the_wo… Gorgeous Thu, 09/28/2017 - 15:52 Permalink

I'd agree that using anectodal and short-term evidence as an argument is relatively weak if this article weren't specifically addressing the Warmist anecdotal evidence of declining ice extent as proof of CAGW.  Since they won't debate the science (it's settled, don't you know) we are left at times with debating their straw man evidence.  Unless you prefer we stick to the high road and use only rational and complete arguments.....which I'm ok with.

In reply to by Gorgeous

francis_the_wo… Gorgeous Thu, 09/28/2017 - 20:46 Permalink

Sadly, this topic has moved way past scientific theory and now resides purely in the realms of fanatical zealotry.  When one questions one of the Warmistas on any particular portion of the science behind CAGW, they fall back on one of the Gore-isms or the "97% of scientists...." nonsense.  A typical reply I hear is something like "well then explain why all of the snow on Mt. Kilamanjaro has melted".  If you try to point out that said mountain currently has a quite healthy snowcap and offer to show proof, they huff and puff, perhaps look at you condescendingly, or engage in some other sort of behavior designed to support their false and needed sense of moral superiority.  The virtue signalling has reached a crescendo I didn't think was possible in rational human beings.  We are talking about rational human beings, aren't we?

In reply to by Gorgeous

giorgioorwell GUS100CORRINA Thu, 09/28/2017 - 13:46 Permalink

yeah, you're all brilliant climatolgists!or you can try reading a real article on the topic:…"With this recent news, NASA also noted that ice extent in the Antarctic reached a new record maximum coverage. The agency hastens to point out that increased sea-ice coverage in the Antarctic is only about a third of magnitude of sea-ice loss in the Arctic Ocean" 

In reply to by GUS100CORRINA

Automatic Choke ReturnOfDaMac Thu, 09/28/2017 - 14:37 Permalink

I'm a physicist.   I'm so disgusted with the political weenies who have taken over administration of APS and AIP that I terminated my membership.   The folks who write that crap are so bad at physics that they spend their time doing administrative stuff instead of research.If you can hack it, look at the raw data and the papers, and you will likewise conclude that anthropomorphic CO2 based climate change is bunk.   If you can't hack looking first hand.....well, then you have to believe somebody, so your views are basically religion.   Sheep. 

In reply to by ReturnOfDaMac

ReturnOfDaMac Automatic Choke Thu, 09/28/2017 - 14:59 Permalink

I'm an engineer.  There is much truth to the fact that a giant nucluear fusion reactor 93 Million miles away has much to do with this little blue ball's atmospherics as evidenced by global warming on Mars too.  But it takes a fool to believe that you can continually pump any substance into a "mostly" closed atmosphere and say it has no effect.  I will not argue with people who say you can change something and then say there is no change.  How much, we can argue, geologic timelines are much longer than human timelines.  Trying to infer with statistics is where all the handwaving comes from. 

In reply to by Automatic Choke

rusty_nail ReturnOfDaMac Thu, 09/28/2017 - 15:24 Permalink

I'm not sure about the mostly closed part. The northern forests and oceans can absorb CO2 and remove it from any heat trapping reactions in the atmosphere. Plus isn't water vapor supposed to be a more efficient heat trapping gas than CO2? That Physics Today article only referenced 20-30 years of data, far too short for this discussion. To serve mankind better, a cheap source of energy used to heat and cool would be the goal of concerned scientists. Fear mongering only helps raise money.

In reply to by ReturnOfDaMac