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.