It’s not a difference in method, it’s different quantity altogether and the one which represents the amount of ice is ‘area’, ‘extent’ just tells you how it’s spread out!

– which by the way is getting clearer and clearer EVERY DAY now, here 14/8 comparisation between 2008 and 2005 :

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=08&fd=14&fy=2005&sm=08&sd=14&sy=2008

I write one more time:
”
The ice extend in 2008 is back to 2005 level. This was recently by alarmist said to be 100% impossible. But non the less.

Your saying it a second time doesn’t make it correct.

So the ice extend is NOT decreasing this year and so the so called “scientists” should not say so in ANY way. Should not manipulate readers to think so. it stinks!

Again not the relevant parameter, whether it’s more or less than last year depends on the wind as much as anything else. Ice area is very close to last year and could finish either way, with the amount of fragmented ice still there a record is still possible.
”
Phil try to look very careful at the link i gave.
1) Does it look as though the north pole has less ice in 2008 than 2005?
Whether it does or not depends on someone’s photoshopping, there’s no data at the Pole, see the black dot in the actual image, no data!
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.some.000.png

2) Does it actually look as though 2008 has more solid ice around the north pole than in 2005
No

3) Is it not interesting that this “back to 2005″ happends EVEN THOUGH the ice was thin 1 year ice?
It’s surpassed 2005, already 2008 has less ice than the minimum in 2005, despite starting with 1 million sq km more area this spring!

4) Is it then fair in any article to claim that we now in 2008 has exeptionally big chance of an ice free north pole??

No one said ‘exceptionally big chance’, Serreze for example said 50/50, check out the fractured region at ~135ºE.

Phil:
We have globally colder temperatures than last year,
Global temperatures aren’t particularly relevant to the fate of Arctic ice, even NH is of limited applicability, we’ve had 26ºC in the Canadian Arctic this summer. But those temperatures aren’t included in your ‘global’ statistics.

and we have more ice than last year

As pointed out above it’s a wash at present.

and the sun has gone sleeping.

Really how much has the TSI dropped this year?

So, Phil, please understand that some of us finds it misleading with these “ICE-FREE NORTH POLE” articles. If you dont understand it, i guarantee, many others will.

I suggest that you inform yourself on the situation then.
Yesterday’s AMSR-E image from JAXA is a good start:
http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsredata/asi_daygrid_swath/l1a/n6250/2008/aug/asi180-n6250-20080814_nic.png

I remember getting this story emailed to me at one point, but given the volume of email I get I often delete a lot of it. But I found it again due to a recent UK Register story citing it.

Here it is:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/01/content_7696460.htm

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=08&fd=14&fy=2005&sm=08&sd=14&sy=2008

I write one more time:
”
The ice extend in 2008 is back to 2005 level. This was recently by alarmist said to be 100% impossible. But non the less.

So the ice extend is NOT decreasing this year and so the so called “scientists” should not say so in ANY way. Should not manipulate readers to think so. it stinks!
”
Phil try to look very careful at the link i gave.
1) Does it look as though the north pole has less ice in 2008 than 2005?
2) Does it actually look as though 2008 has more solid ice around the north pole than in 2005
3) Is it not interesting that this “back to 2005″ happends EVEN THOUGH the ice was thin 1 year ice?
4) Is it then fair in any article to claim that we now in 2008 has exeptionally big chance of an ice free north pole??

Phil:
We have globally colder temperatures than last year, and we have more ice than last year and the sun has gone sleeping. So, Phil, please understand that some of us finds it misleading with these “ICE-FREE NORTH POLE” articles. If you dont understand it, i guarantee, many others will.

Well, if you can cherry pick Northern Hemisphere sea ice, then I guess I can cherry pick Southern Hemisphere sea ice: click

Oh, and the North Pole still has enough ice cover to make Santa go out and polish his sleigh: click

See? There’s plenty of ice. That kayaker is gonna have himself a tough time paddling across the North Pole.

So no need to panic, Phil. Just try to relax, and try to think happy thoughts. The AGW boogeyman only scares those who are prone to fright.

Actually it does, I suggest you read up on the subject before pontificating further.

Smokey (17:52:01) :
Thanks for posting this graph, Phil. It clearly shows us that current sea ice is well within the range referred to as “normal.”

Actually I didn’t but I guess you know that.
shows that this year’s ice is already as low as the minimum area recorded in the last 29 years except for last year, and is still dropping at ~0.1Mm^2/day. Not within the normal range. Unless melting stops within the next few days this year will see the largest ice melt in the satellite era!

That’s what I like about graphs. We can immediately see if we need to panic. This isn’t one of those times.

Oh, and F Rasmin, don’t worry about the true believers. We can handle them [and it's known that at least six of them are the same individual, masquerading as a group].

The glaring difference between sites like this one and alarmist sites is that most alarmist sites do not allow uncomfortable or inconvenient truths to be posted. RealClimate is a case in point, along with Rabett, Tamino and others. They don’t understand that the truth emerges through discussion, not through censorship. Maybe that’s the reason they censor, no?

This was recently by alarmist said to be 100% impossible. But non the less.

So the ice extend is NOT decreasing this year and so the so called “scientists” should not say so in ANY way. Should not manipulate readers to think so. it stinks!

This detail about the geographical point, the north pole:
Should it happend that this point by freak coincidence should be ice free it is of no relevanse: The important thing is that EVEN THOUGH THE ICE WAS THIN, ICE EXTEND IS BIGGER IN 2008 than. This does certainly not indicate a warmer artic, and any article who makes the impression of artic warmer in 2008 than 2007 is FALSE! And thanks to Anthony these misleading articles are pinpointed.

Anthony and others:
Why is it that Cryosphere gives a picture that the ice melt of 2008 is close to 2007, when its not?

Because it is! You are comparing two different parameters and appear to think that they’re the same, they are not.
Sea Ice Extent is the sum of the area enclosing ice concentration of greater than 15%, Sea Ice Area (as reported by CT) is the sum of the area x concentration, and therefore is a better measure of the amount of ice.
As an illustration you could have the same area of ice distributed in two ways, average concentration of 25% and 75%, in the first case the extent would be 4x the area whereas in the second it would be 1.33x the area.

As shown by CT the area is fairly close to the ‘07 value (~0.3Mm^2 behind on 08/12).

So yes you did pull it out of thin air, you invented a fantasy scenario and then proceeded to ridicule it! However, if the N Pole were to become ice free this year (the estimate was a 50/50 chance) it would most likely be an extension of last year’s situation when ice-free water was encroaching from one side (Siberia), see link.

http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/images/20071001_extent.png

This would of course not form your imaginary ring, especially since the multi-year ice accumulates on the N American coastline.

The scientists talking about an ice free North Pole, based those predictions on several factors:
First, there was relatively thin first year ice at the Pole at the beginning of the season, with multiyear ice in the Greenland sea, Beaufort Sea and other areas were the melt rates would particularly high, and with the best expanse of multiyear ice along the northern coast of the Canadian islands and Greenland. Look at the graphic in this link, and see the hole (of thin first year ice):
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-no-ice-at-the-north-pole-855406.html

Further, the scientists said wind patterns and ocean current patterns could help melt the ice at the Pole this year. Here is a link to a recent post dated August 11 at NSIDC discussing this (check out the conditions for a strong southerly wind over the pole):
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

At this point in time, it doesn’t appear that the Pole will go ice free this year, the melt rate in July wasn’t strong enough. But the forecasts weren’t predicting with certainly the Pole would melt out; only that some forecasters assigned a probability that it might, given the specifics above.

Contrary to your assertions, no one said the entire Arctic Ocean would go ice free! That is simply a straw man, set up to easily knock down.

The problem here is that your post misstated what the scientists predicted and forecast… the post was grossly inaccurate, irrespective of what happens next.

REPLY: I understand the point you are trying to make, but I’ll point out that you made the same misstep you accuse me of.

I have to call BS on this statement: “Look at the graphic in this link, and see the hole (of thin first year ice):” Sir, “thin first year ice” is NOT a hole. A hole is open ice free water, or water and ice mixed. Please don’t insult me by trying to convince me a hole exists where solid ice is. I’m “shocked” that you would equate a frozen ice surface to a “hole”, thin or not. Your assertion is flat wrong.

The point is the whole “ice free” forecast and media blitz on it was flawed from the start. And as you rightly point out, whether probability or just bone headed public PR forecasting for effect, its not likely to happen.

Again unless somebody shows me an actual significant and sustained hole in the sea ice at the north pole, its just arguing semantics. Ice Free North Pole or Ice Free Arctic, (or your new phrase “Ice Free Artic Ocean”)none of these is happening.

“I thought that if I pointed out where you have missed the target, or misstated the target in your recent posts, you might calibrate your future posts.” Yes indeed, I’ll be more careful in choosing descriptive words so I don’t have to waste time in semantic arguments like this over the use of the words.

It begins:
” Polar Ice Check – Still a lot of ice up there

During our last check in, we had a look at northern Canada from the Arctic Circle to the North pole, and found we had quite a ways to go before we see an “ice free arctic” this year as some have speculated.”

I read this and immediately thought, who in their right mind would believe that all the ice in the Arctic Ocean would melt this year? Certainly no knowledgeable person would make such a speculation, since it would involve melting off an additional 4+ million square kilometers of ice than last year.

Basically Anthony set up a “straw man” by misquoting experts on Arctic ice. He then showed some pictures of ice in the Arctic, and easily knocked down the straw man.

Some of the comments didn’t agree… On July 30th Mike Keep pointed out the straw man:
“Err, correct me if I’m wrong but weren’t all the headlines earlier about an ice free North Pole (still quite possible as there is another 7 weeks before peak melt), not an ice free Arctic, something quite different.”

His comment was knocked by many of the subsequent posters, but on July 31, Mike Keep points out my central point of this post, and virtually every one of my comments since I arrived here:

“It dismays me. This blog has in the past had much good debate but it has become farcical and full of sensationalistic innacuracies lately (the very thing the average blogger here claims the AGW camp are guilty of). Even Anthony who has done much fine work on temperature equipment is guilty of this. I will use this thread as an example. First ice loss in the Arctic is above normal, due to an higher mean temperature anomolies.”

Then JP Rourke points out the straw man again in a response to Pieter Folkens:

“a good chance of an ice-fee North Pole” is what the ‘experts’ have been quoted saying – NOT “ice-free arctic”… if you want to persist in saying the latter, please give at least ONE cite, of ANY GW or AGW ‘expert’ saying that. Please? If you can, I will join you in roundly critiquing such statement. It is not going to happen!

In response, the posters on that thread then cited this source:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/arctic-02a.html

where it says that in the FUTURE the Arctic could go ice free. Direct quote: “Last winter the Bering Sea was effectively ice-free, which is unprecedented, and if this big melt continues, some say the formerly ice-locked Arctic will have open sea lanes as soon as 2015. By 2050, the summertime ice cap could disappear entirely.”

There were no scientists speculating about an “ice free Arctic” this year, as Anthony said in his post. This site has a big credibility problem, and it is getting bigger.

REPLY: The issue is one of labels. Yes the original stories said “ice free north pole in 2008″. However, by what mechanism would you propose that the ice at the north pole and environs would melt, leaving a ring of ice around the north pole? As far as I know, such a thing has never happened, nor could I see a mechanism for it to happen. But if you know of one, please explain how such a ring of ice with open water in it could occur and why specifically it would occur this year? The closest I’ve ever seen to an “ice free north pole” was that picture of the 3 submarines with some leads around them, but the pole certainly wasn’t ice free then. If you have a photo or graphic that illustrates the pole being ice free with ice surrounding it, please post it. I’ll be happy to highlight it.

In my view, since ice tends to melt at the southern latitudes first, with the total extent gradually shrinking from the edges towards the pole (in general, though there are regional exceptions) the phrase “ice free north pole in 2008″ strongly implies that there would not be a ring of ice with a hole at the north pole, where only that area has melted, but a generally ice free area. Thus to me saying that the “north pole would be ice free” also says the edges at lower latitudes up to the pole would be ice free as well. The point of the satellite images was to show that at that time, this had not happened.

I look forward to seeing real world examples of how an ice free north pole with a ring of ice around it might have happened in the past or would have happenened this year. In my view, simple leads (which happen and disappear) don’t count. This has to be a sustained event.

As for credibility problem, well I’ll leave that up to site data, which says visits are on the rise. I suppose if my broad credibility were shrinking, so would those numbers, but so far, its been up every month.

I think the bigger credibility problem is with news agencies that made the big story from this scientist’s errant quote in the first place.

Lets start with Smokey who said: “Paul K, you should really read the comments before spouting off like that. It’s embarassing: click. As you can see, the extent of sea ice this year is well within normal parameters.
And please give a little more respect to our host. Just because you don’t agree, doesn’t mean that he pulls his conclusions out of thin air.”

I happen to agree with Tiger Wood’s dad, who said “Love is a given, but respect is earned!”, and I even go so far to give respect initially, until someone proves otherwise. Beyond that, I am afraid we get into personal attacks, and I would much rather stick with the facts. So I decline to follow up on your personal comments about me.

Regarding the information on pulling conclusions out of thin air, my comment that linked to another one of Anthony’s recent posts that misrepresented a Chicago Tribune article, but was snipped out by our host. I can’t even link to one of our host’s very own posts; so this makes it difficult to show a consistent misrepresentation in the posts on this blog.

But there are many examples of misrepresentations of scientific and news articles in these posts, so let me try again in my next post.

BTW, the link you sent me to, shows only the last seven years of ice data for the Arctic. If you look at current ice compared to the last 30 year trend line here:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20080811_Figure2.png

you will see the ice extent is much lower than long term trends, and NOT as you said: “As you can see, the extent of sea ice this year is well within normal parameters.”

REPLY: Paul K its quite simple, you want to start up a discussion that’s been closed because commenters on both sides got unruly, so I decided to close it. The decision stands. You don’t like the way the article was posted. I understand that. But I’m not going to re-open the thread discussion here because you have issues with it. You are welcome to discuss anything else currently open.

The quote say “not all” meaning some or most of the climate change is due to global warming.
You left out “large changes”

I believe Mr. Watts did an excellent job of tying the two studies (observed data) together.
Guardian
This may be only factual statement in the whole article.
“Satellite images show that ice caps started to disintegrate dramatically several days ago as storms over Alaska’s Beaufort Sea began sucking streams of warm air into the Arctic.”
The rest is based on opinions and “AGW-CO2 drives the climate” computer models that incorrectly model ocean currents and wind circulation. No wonder they wrong. The computer model aren’t based on observed data. They are based on speculation.

…there is no data, or scientific organization, or significant recent climatology research that could lead anyone to the conclusion that “the Arctic sea ice could be on the mend”, as Anthony states… he pulled this conclusion out of thin air.

Paul K, you should really read the comments before spouting off like that. It’s embarassing: click. As you can see, the extent of sea ice this year is well within normal parameters.

And please give a little more respect to our host. Just because you don’t agree, doesn’t mean that he pulls his conclusions out of thin air.

Serreze is the same guy who forecast the North Pole to be “ice free this summer for the first time.”

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa1.jpg

He obviously has an agenda which is outside the bounds of conservative science,