The question really is “is the downward trend noise (weather) or will the trend continue?” Try looking at a plot of smoothed Hadcrut (try 120 months for example) and you’ll see a peak around 1940 and one about 1880 (about 60 yrs or so). We’re about 60 yrs after the last peak so I’m getting confident that we’re in a downturn for maybe the next 30 yrs. There is also a underlying positive trend so the trough may be higher than the last minima but I think it’s going to look like the trend has gone negative for awhile. You can detrend using about a 0.8 value to see the peaks easier.

if this works heres a plot

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/mean:120/detrend:0.8

I am a big fan of WUWT and enjoy your postings. This is a great article about sea ice and I am glad there are people like you presenting the other side to these arguments. Please do not take the following argument as an attack on you or your work. However, I do disagree with your assertion that based on this RSS data shown in your article, temperatures have been trending lower since 2003. I pulled up the RSS data on wood for trees all the way back to the late 1970s. The graph shows that temperatures have basicly moved sideways from the late 1970s through the early 1990s. Starting from the low in the early 1990s, there is a clear uptrend formed by connecting the lows of the data series. If you draw a parellel line connecting the highs together you get a nice uptrending channel, except for the spike high put in during 1998. We know this is an aberation because of El Nino and because the measurements came back into the uptrending channel and remained there until 2007. In mid 2007, the trend line was broken on the downside and it is currently still below this trend line.
In my opinion, your contention that temperatures have been in a downtrend since 2003 is not supported by this data. You can not use a simple linear trend line to determine when the trend change occurred because it is highly dependent upon what year you start and end the linear trend and the magnitude of the current drop (the steeper the drop the farther back you can go and show a downward linear trend line).
For example, your graph shows the linear trend falling from 2003 to 2009. But you could even go back to 2001 and still show a downward linear trend to 2009. If you do a linear trend from 2003 to 2006 it is flat and from 2006 to 2009 a steep downward trend. If you do a 10 year linear trend 1999-2009 it is an upward trend. The point is you can play around with linear trends all you want, but they are not a good indicator of when the change in trend occurred.
When temperatures or other mesurements are trending higher you expect to see higher highs and higher lows as the trend progresses, with a degree of variability within this rising trend channel. This is exactly what this data shows with the trend line being violated in mid 2007, representing a change in trend. In this case it appears the temperatures are trending sideways or lower after mid 2007, but not prior to this. Other data sets may show a different result. I am only commenting on this RSS data set. Thank you for pointing out the woods for trees site. It is interesting to play around with the numbers and see the effects. mike borcherding

D. King: :) Maybe I should have said: unsuspected consequences of Arctic melting. The current party line is “the globe will burn up”. The geologic report I cited says instead that eradicating (melting and evaporating) the Arctic ice ushers in the next ice age and provides the water to feed continental glaciers – exactly the opposite of the present “consensus” idea.
*******

That’s possible. Right now, I think the high Arctic tundra is already cold enough to produce glaciers, but has too little snow for it to accumulate. If the Arctic ocean stayed relatively open in the winter, much more prec (snow) would be available. IIRC, Barrow, AK had record early-season snow this past autumn, w/unusually wide-open water to its north.

There is some computer modeling that suggests the Arctic ocean was actually mostly open during the glacial periods. Goggle “Gildor-Tziperman” for these simulations.

I don’t disagree with a lot of what you say, but what crystal ball is telling you a LOT of late summer melt? The previous 2 seasons had unusual wind and Pacific warm water incursion leading to larger than normal July-Sept. ice loss.

Experience. Disappointment has given me an attitude.

The ice is mostly 1 or 2 years old and thus thin. What happened last summer was that a huge area all melted simultaneously. “Sea ice extent” is the area where the ocean is 15% or more ice. I watched huge regions falling below 100% and each day more pixels would drop below 15%. (Yes, “pixels;” that’s how they measure it.) It was rather predictable short term. Those 24hour days melt a lot of ice, and the first year ice is hard pressed to survive (though some does).

But my real reason for the issuing the strong caution is just a matter of tactics. It’s always wiser to use measured language. Avoid going out on a limb (which is exactly why this issue matters — the Gorebots have staked a clear claim here and it’ll be tactical error that sinks their ship.)

I fully expect arctic sea ice to recover significantly over the next few years. But don’t expect too much progress in any one year. It could happen but don’t count on it.

And definitely don’t put yourself in a position to get zinged if we have a single bad month. Always caveat any “bragging” with the boilerplate, “we expect further melting and this summer’s minimum will not show this much recovery.”

The sea ice plots will be shocking as hell to anyone who refuses to step out from behind the iron curtain (AKA the MSM). The AMSR-E plot will soon show 2009 as the highest ever (but in 2008 early May was the highest ever.) There’s a good chance that 2009 in the NSIDC plot will even touch the 1979-2000 average. That’ll be a great time to send out some “wake-up” emails. But those emails will wear better over time if their predictions are VERY conservative.

Not sure why you would want to ignore the last two years, but even if you did – RSS showed a downwards trend from 2003-2007
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2003/to:2008/plot/rss/from:2003/to:2008/trend

You can always plot these out for yourself.

“Now that we have a topic that sounds just like my last 10 posts, let me play devil’s advocate. While this year’s arctic sea ice will continue to be impressively large for a few more months, late summer will see a LOT of melting.

Look carefully at last year’s plot in the AMSR-E data. It looked like a huge recovery — right through July. But watching it in August felt like being a Cubs fan. We ended up with some recovery from ‘07 but not much. Expect some more recovery this year but don’t make a big deal about this being a record high year or you’re gonna get a plate of crow served to you. The 2007 minimum left us with some seriously thin ice and the summer melt will be significant.”

I don’t disagree with a lot of what you say, but what crystal ball is telling you a LOT of late summer melt? The previous 2 seasons had unusual wind and Pacific warm water incursion leading to larger than normal July-Sept. ice loss. I’d be interested if anyone has any idea or info on similar conditions that might apply this season. The Bering Sea looks cold now with higher than normal ice cover. I have no idea if AMO or PDO will have any influence over the wind conditions. Anybody?

“Poorer countries” will export to the USA the food they will need, of course provided they pay with real money, not with newly printed “trillions”

Why are we so worried about ice? It hardly affects life positively. There must be so much ice in the universe at large it is ridiculous. The presence of permanent ice on the earth’s surface is a geological anomaly.
Well, to put it simply, we skeptic/climate Realists are not worried so much as interested, but the Alarmists are, well ALARMED. The useful idiots, (the ones who will sign a petition against DHMO) believing everything the MSM screams about coming disasterous floods, droughts, fires, and every calamity known to man truly are worried, and full of guilt, due to the fact that they were born and require the use of resources, and will necessarily emit DANGEROUS CO2 Pollution. But, thankfully, there is a way to salvation, and they can atone for their “sins against Mother Gaia”.
The AGW “scientists” and ideologues seem to have hitched their AGW wagon to what happens (or, more importantly, what the say WILL happen) with the icecaps, particularly the Arctic icecap, which is an interesting strategy. I suppose part of it is that melting ice is something that can be more easily seen, and understood by the lay person. There are plenty of stock photos of ice doing what it has always done, which is freezing, flowing, calving and thawing which can be used to capitalize on the ignorance of the general public of these things. Throw in a wan-looking polar bear or two “stranded” on an iceberg, and voila, you have instant, ready-for-prime-time Alarmism any Chicken Little could be proud of.
Of course, the assumptions are that the ice melting is 1) caused by man and 2) the melting Arctic icecap will create a positive feedback loop, leading to the melting of the land-based ice of Greenland, resulting in catastrophic sea level rises of perhaps 80 feet.
The Alarmists are wrong about what is happening with the Arctic ice, since it is in fact rebounding from its low 2007 anomaly. But, they dodge, move the goalposts, and cherry pick to their hearts’ delight to try desperately to keep the Alarmism alive, as is their wont.
We skeptic/climate Realists do need to remember to hold the Alarmists’ feet to the fire on their false and fraudulent assumptions on why ice melts, or doesn’t, and not get too bogged down in their little games about what the ice is actually doing, as interesting as that is.