Arctic Springtime Ice On The Mend
Guest post by Steven Goddard
Two of the Arctic ice sites show April 16 ice at recent record levels. The Japanese site IJIS has a seven year April record going back to 2003, and reports 2009 levels at the highest extent on record for the date: 13,649,219 km2.
The Danish Meteorological Institute has a five year database, and also shows April 16 ice extent as the highest in their short record.
A plot of April 16 extent made from the IJIS database shows that mid April ice extent has made a nice recovery from the 2004 low, increasing by more than 5%.
This is probably not coincidental with the fact that since 2003, global temperatures have been declining.
Next time Washington Post writers decide to bash George Will about ice, perhaps they should check their facts first. The comment below from that piece shows just how irrational the thinking of climate “journalism” has become.
“citing “global” sea ice statistics like that is nearly meaningless in the context of global climate change”
Why would you use “global” statistics when examining a “global” problem? What was George thinking of?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Meanwhile EPA is classifying CO2 and five other gases as detrimental to human health today. Here we go. Idiots!
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/6378492.html
The Warmongers have recently let us know in a preemptive strike that actual sea ice extent means nothing. It’s all about “multi-year” ice now.
Yes, but now even Sarah Palin is drumming the AGW drum telling the Polar Region is at risk.
No matter how much ice records are recorded, we are all going down the drain.
How does this look on the curve that’s usually used to compare the current year to the mean and the recent low of 2007? Does it show the extent trend-line crossing over the mean trend line? I suspect it does, but it would be nice to see an image of it.
I was just looking at the NSIDC site and wondering where has all the melting gone, long time waiting. This is a poster child for nature, not man, ruling the climate, they have the Polar Bears, we have the Ice.
Makes the news? Not a friggin chance.
I think Minimum Ice Extent this year will be 20% over 2008. (for posterity)
BTW the EPA played it’s endgame card today GHG pose a real and significant threat to humans and the environment… 60 Days for Comments ( actually 60 days for the Congress to ram through Cap and Trade) then The Lord Marshall (POTUS) shall state “convert now or fall forever”
Time to choose to lay down and take it or stand up and do what is right. This is the time when the rubber hits the road friends.
My reaction on my site (click on my name).
Not to worry it will soon be all gone … July this year, for sure, the Arctic will be ice free. For sure, no kidding this time.
The delay of consistent spring warming appears to be a hemispheric condition. It is actually quite worrying.
Roger Knights, check out:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/daily.html
2009 for the Arctic is still below the 1979-2000 average. Antarctic is well above the 1979-2000 average. Together, the Arctic + Antarctic are above the 1979-2000 average.
Ice is fun but it doesn’t matter. We have passed the tipping point of the manipulation of science/data for political purposes and it will likely only accelerate from now on. There are many $thousand millions at stake, that buys a lot of consensus. Anyway, today is a great day, ’09 has gone ahead of ’03! The ice is dead…long live the ice.
compelling facts on cyclical sea ice fluctuations, almost completely independent of man-made CO2 contributions.
and the NYT weighs in on the big CO2-the-dangerous-pollutant news of today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/science/earth/18endanger.html?hp
Regulating CO2 is like regulating photosynthesis and respiration – hubris supreme, or is it Orwellian control? – how stupid can bureaucrats and politician get?
Reducing CO2 emissions in the Western world won’t make an iota of difference, but it will set an unfortunate example on how to misinterpret natural systems.
The new extent data will be pew pew’d as all new contradictory data is by the greens. All we can do is keep getting the word out. I would not worry over much about the EPA ruling. It would be bad in the short term but Americans vote with their wallet. As soon as the economic damage shows up in energy bills every month, there will be a paradigm shift in thinking.
wait wait wait…..you actually think a major newspaper is going to check the facts first? facts dont sell! fear and creating a sense fo vunerability so that the mighty gonvernment can swoop in sells. thats why they made such a big fuss about 1998 being a major sign of global warming….and why every cold spell is only “weather noise”
Roger means the extended trend for ’09 against ’79-’00. Hard to say if it will cross this year but is is steadily closing. The % ice covers are loosening up around the edges so my wild guess is that ’09 is about to reduce its convergence to nil and run parallel.
Natural Gas prices up today. Reaction to EPAs insane ruling? Coal will become the Devil? Nuke power a long way off. fm
OT but an interesting story taking place at North Dakota.
Devils Lake is rising since 1993 at levels not seen for 2000 years.
What is happening here?
http://www.accuweather.com/mt-news-blogs.asp?blog=community
24 inches of snow forecast for the Denver area today, but temperatures are forecast to be some 20 degrees above normal where I live by Sunday. Currently looking like 90 degrees on Monday after weeks of temperatures well below normal.
Dirty black Redoubt volcano beautiful white again thanks to fresh snow:
http://www.seablogger.com/?p=13469
Look how skewed and manipulative this poll and article is
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/apr/17/climate-change-religion
The question posed by the article is manipulative for a start. Are they talking about natural or anthropogenic climate change? Urban heat island effects or a global chemical change that is altering the climate for worse or better? There’s no detail.
Why is such an question posed to the public to extract demographics in the first place? Were they searching for a demographic or ethnic group they could point the finger to and say “Look, unbelievers! They are backwards!”
Well, they score a Fail. If they were attempting to make white middle American Christians look like morons, the way Hollywood and coastal elitism does, they failed because the world isn’t currently warming.
The issue here is that they want to group any non-alarmist with religion. Well, let’s ask Hansen, Gore, Mann et al what their religious beliefs are and persecute them for it too. Let’s persecute Madonna for believing in alarmist messages while believing in Kabala. Let’s persecute Leo Di Caprio for being some kind of Buddhist. Let’s persecute Obama for his beliefs too. Why stop at middle American when you have the coasts too?
Is there no end to the attempt to divide the public and turn people into frothing enemies so that a few can gain politically and financially from climate change hysteria?
There has got to be a way for a massive group to take legal action here. The damage that is being caused to society just on a personal level is immense. They are creating hate.
” Ron de Haan (12:12:06) : ”
Funny you should mention that. I happened to look at the “Hut” webcam just now and it had snapped a pyroclastic flow in progress down the valley. It was only about half way down the mountain, about where the waterfall is.
It might be worth a post or two comparing and contrasting the various satellite measurement techniques – their accuracy, precision and longevity.
The long term averages that keep getting mentioned are from a different satellite. There have been several quotes from professionals about AMSR-E being both more accurate and precise, but everyone then proceeds to continue measuring with the old yardstick. There’s no effort at calibrating the two.
Well apparently more people are starting to see that the ice is defying predictions.
Meanwhile there’s two major stories that could send shockwaves when it comes to the fall of the AGW agenda
http://www.iceagenow.com/French_Reversal_on_climate_policy.htm
It includes Australia possibly dumping their carbon trading scheme for a period of time and trying again later (unless they start thinking CO2 may actually be a good thing)
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25342527-421,00.html
Despite the evidence that Artic ice is on the increase, we get this kind of nonsense
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/apr/17/alaska-migration-climate-change
In Alaska, climate change is creating an unforeseen humanitarian crisis. Arctic sea ice – which had protected communities from coastal erosion and flooding – is rapidly disappearing and signalling a radical transformation of this northern ecosystem. Scientific observations during the summer of 2007 documented a new record low.
They start off by talking about the present but then when they have to cite science they go back two years. WTFUWT?
REPLY: Don’t complain here, write to the editor and the reporter and call them on it. – Anthony
Steven,
The reason why the Cryosphere folks caution against placing too much emphasis on the “global” statistic of global sea ice is that it is aggregating two differently-phased trends, so it will exhibit considerably more short-term variability in the anomaly data than either of the component trends in isolation.
On a related note, what would you consider a reasonable timeframe to evaluate a trend in sea ice? 10 years? 5 years? 2 years? Taking the same approach as the recent temperature graphs from Lucia’s site, here are all three:
Ten year anomaly trends in sea ice by end date:
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/Picture6-1.png
Five year anomaly trends in sea ice by end date:
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/Picture7-1.png
Two year anomaly trends in sea ice by end date:
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/Picture8-3.png
You can see that using 10 year trends, global and arctic sea ice are clearly negative, and the last two years have done little to change that. Using 5 year trends, arctic sea ice is still strongly negative while global sea ice is right about zero. Using 2 year trends, well, everything has been increasing rapidly except for Antarctic sea ice. That said, the shorter period you use in determining the trend, the more noise there is in the data. If you choose to use a trend less than 10 years, you can pretty much cherry-pick a starting date to make any point you want. Using more than 10 years of data, you always get a declining trend in arctic and global sea ice.
You can see this clearly if we look at the slope of the trend in sea ice anomaly from each month to the present:
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/Picture10-2.png
[bobdobbs@fuckyou.com is not a valid email address – permanent ban on a first comment, a new record. – Anthony]
Record Ice at the Arctic and this stunningly stupid politician in power makes this remarks:
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2009/04/stunningly-stupid-comments-from.html
For those who did not know it for a fact already, we are ruled by idiots.