NOAA Data Shows Arctic Ice At Its Lowest In 1500 Years


We have been following the overwhelming evidence of drastic climate change, but few studies are as striking as the most report from NOAA’s Arctic research program.  The annual Arctic Report Card  that we have reached the highest loss of Arctic ice in 1500 years. Recently discussed the controversial statements of Administration officials like Energy Secretary Rick Perry on the U.S. offering a better future through fossil fuels.  These studies show a potentially catastrophic future as our climate continues to change exponentially.

Among the findings is that the average surface air temperature for the year ending September 2016 is by far the highest since 1900.  Look at this data:


Sea ice during this period is the second lowest in the satellite record, which started in 1979.


NOAA is respected worldwide for its analysis and it has concluded that the changes being observed in the Arctic are unprecedented in human history.

The Arctic is now warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world.


This, according to scientist Emily Osborne, is “the largest magnitude decline in sea ice, and the greatest sustained rate in sea ice decline in that 1,500-year record.”

508 thoughts on “NOAA Data Shows Arctic Ice At Its Lowest In 1500 Years”

  1. For those who are interested in the science associated with CO2 from fossil fuels affecting climate the work of Professor Murry Salby should be of interest. The bottom line is that his analysis shows that the percentage of CO2 produced by fossil fuels in the atmosphere (it goes to other sinks) and therefore its affect on temperature is also small. He outlines his work in a lecture at the University of London:

    1. Edit: The bottom line is that his analysis shows that the percentage of CO2 produced by fossil fuels in the atmosphere is small (it goes to other sinks) and therefore its affect on temperature is also small.

  2. I am going to give up following this thread. Been taken over by the ignoranti.

    1. Yes, we know – anyone unwilling to set their perspective on climate based on your required reading of some history writer is ignorant.

      Several significant flags in the CAGW thesis have been exposed here.

      Ultimately they all devolve to a permutation of the more general argument I make.
      There is not enough stored energy on the planet to be consistent with the Global climate models.

      Warmists do not seem to comprehend that linear increases in global temperatures require exponential increases in stored energy.

      Though warmists are likely wrong and current temperatures have been reached many times in the past milenia, they are also likely correct that significantly warmer temperatures have not been reached in millions of years. What they fail to grasp is that is not an accident. that natural systems do not tend to have fixed static states but oscilate inside a narrow range of dynamic equilibrium.
      The warmer the planet gets the greater the odds against its warming further – nature dictates that, as does physics.

      Warmist theory requires that nature is unbeleiveably fragile, as opposed to the incredible resiliance that millions of years of history reflects.

      But those of us who disagree with you. Who question how your religion is consistent with real science – we are somehow ignorant ?

  3. climate change and formerly global warming formerly ozone layer formerly ice age crazies have been caught yet again fudging thier data in behalf of well paying totalitarian government entities and NGOs.
    this stuff IS NOT SCIENCE.
    Scientific theory is to be disproven, not propagandized to the masses, who are screaming in fear, ready to relinquish thier rights, freedom, blood and treasure of other people to the peddlers of this fars.
    Im a classic Liberal, but
    Jeeesus! You people went so totalitarian left field, that you went out of the park and into the parking lot.

    1. Don’t worry what you are screaming about but first do read “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart, available online. Factual.

      1. Are YOU able to make an argument or not ?

        If what you read is so persuasive, you should be well enough informed to argue your own case.

        Facts, Logic Reason – not appeals to authority – and not even significant authorities.

        I think everybody gets that two books have impressed you.

    1. Wanted to post this very link SF, thank you for noticing the article. Guess JT will be more careful in choosing his sources now.

      1. “If it is from Breitbart you know it is wrong.”

        David is that your scientific opinion or your political opinion?

Comments are closed.