Sea ice area approaching the edge of normal standard deviation

Looks like the polar bears may not have to swim to Iceland today. This ice “bridge” from Greenland to Iceland, showing in the map below, could have been partly as a result of the recent “Icelandic low” pressure. It will be interesting to see if this is an early sign of a quick recovery on that side of the ice.
http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/maps_daily_ncepice.html
Color code showing at least 50% concentration. Curious no other site is depicting this.

Since when was population control not relevant to the CO2 debate?

Because it requires a totalitarian state. Are you willing to give up all your freedom?

Guess I was wrong about no one else showing the ice bridge:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.some.000.png

Regarding the baseline period, for the purposes of measuring anomalies to determine trends, changing the baseline period has no effect.
However, in this example, we are not estimating trends from anomalies, we are estimating standard deviation of a series. In this case, to get the best estimate of standard deviation, you need to use the maximum length of the best quality data you have available. In this case, using 1979-2007 is “correct” whereas 1979-2000 would be wrong – arbitrarily throwing away data results in a less accurate estimate of s.d. – so in this specific example it is far from an issue of simply a changing baseline.
Nonstationarity is a separate issue, but without a clear quantification of nonstationarity (if it even exists) the longest baseline is still the correct one.

The French word is “minuscule”, and it is derived from the Latin “minusculus”.
Therefore, in English the correct term is “minuscule”, not miniscule.

Phil: That’s just your paranoia, it’s just a change, not a statement of normalcy.”
The original post by Flanagan is:
“So you can include the 2000-2007 years which are way below the 79-2000 average to make it look like it’s “going to normal again”, while actually it’s going back to the 2000-2007 average.”
Seems to me that Flanagan is either using or accusing someone else of using the 79-2000 average as “normal”. It has always been my objection to refer to any arbitrary time period as “normal”. That period of arctic ice coverage is almost always used in a way to either describe or insinuate what should be normal.
( I hope my spelling is right this time, certinly wouldnet want to iritate any one agin.)

kim (07:18:25) :
It was not a reference as such but just a pointer to look at the subject through more recent enlightened eyes rather than the older cataract ridden ones that still think that the MWP was a long lasting global event. AsI mentioned I have given references in previous posts.

“Attempts to show that we are creating a problem with our CO2 output would need to produce evidence that the burning of the total fossil fuel reserve, raising atmospheric CO2 to maybe 3 times its current level and the subsequent 300 times smaller decrease in the alkalinity of the oceans…”
A few days ago I attended a speaking event in Johannsburg where work from a doctoral thesis was presented. The 400 page work quantifies and trends in energy use. It then examines peak oil, peak natural gas, peak coal, peak biomass, renewables and peak uranium, in short, peak energy, which occurs in roughly 2050. After that there is an inexorable reduction in energy production.
He sums the CO2 emissions produced including counting an estimation of the doubling of all discoveries made so far of every form of carbon and nuclear energy.
Peak Coal is the last to occur in about 2070.
By his calculation, even with the present increasing rates of carbon use, at no time does the atmospheric CO2 level reach 450 ppm. There is simply not enough carbon available to ever double the CO2 level as is so often (and casually) mentioned.
His CO2 absorption model does not include the fact that we are entering a time of cooling that may significantly increase the amount taken up by the oceans. Fairbridge’s and Langscheidt’s works are still poorly reported so I can’t fault him for that but time will take care of that.
It was incorrectly claimed in a post above that the oceans are still warming. Not so. During solar cycle 24 we should get a repeat of the 1992 cold snap which saw a brief reduction of CO2 in the northern hemisphere at high latitudes.
Thus even his forecast CO2 max of +/- 440 ppm may never be reached by 2050. After that, there isn’t enough Carbon left at current rate-of-increase-in-use to drive it up further.
His concern is that unless the existing energy reserves are used to build the renewable energy and efficient infrastructures we will run into a long period of energy poverty.
I have a couple of quibbles with the presentation. He does not note that the population is set to peak at about the same times as peak energy which means the energy available per person will stay roughly the same thereafter, not decrease. Another is that the shale oil was not included because of the energy and monetary investment required may not be worth it until the other sources are depleted and the CO2 level already in decline. Maybe, maybe not.
The audience felt that renewables were underestimated in potential. There already are several RE technologies that give a positive return on energy invested in creating them. Black silicon for PV is an interesting one.

http://www.iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/
“Click this button”