Nothing definitive, but interesting. The area plot above is from NANSEN. The extent plot also shows a turn:
DMI also shows it…
Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) – Centre for Ocean and Ice – Click the pic to view at sourceBut JAXA does not….suggesting a difference in sensors/processes.
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) – International Arctic Research Center (IARC) – Click the pic to view at sourceOf course NSIDC has a 5 day average, so we won’t see a change for awhile. Time will tell if this is just a blip or a turn from the new record low for the satellite data set.
More at the WUWT Sea Ice reference page
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Just The Facts,
I will be glad to help get the truth out.
dvunkannon,
I have posted observational evidence repeatedly. Your failure to understand it is no excuse. Here are more eye witness accounts from many different sources. If you believe they were all lying, you are a credulous dope:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/polar-meltdown
Now, let’s see you post observational evidence showing that Arctic ice was not declining during those years. Ball’s in your court, chump.
tjf,
Thanx for your repectful comments. I suggest that you read the comments and newspaper accounts that I linked to here. It is unlikely that every one of those observers fabricated their stories. And if they didn’t, that is strong evidence that the Arctic routinely goes through periods of low or ice free conditions. Face reality, Arctic ice fluctuations are normal and natural events.
Opps.
So much for the up tick. More storms on the way…
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png
Smokey
“And if they didn’t, that is strong evidence that the Arctic routinely goes through periods of low or ice free conditions. Face reality, Arctic ice fluctuations are normal and natural events.”
1. The arctic does not routinely go through this kind of area wide retreat.
2. You have not defined the word “normal”. Your comment is not falsifiable and does not
count as a scientific statement.
Here is what we can say with evidence. We’ve seen nothing like this since 1979. Before 1979 all the data one would like to use to compare is sparse, uses different methods, is not supported by simultaneous multiple observing platforms, is highly uncertain, and is qualitative rather than qauntitative. A proper Null is based on a QUANTITATIVE statement that can be tested useing statistical methods.
Finally, We are now seeing annual cycles in the data that Willis himself argued would falsified the “natural variation null”
Steven Mosher says:
“1. The arctic does not routinely go through this kind of area wide retreat.”
How could you know that? There are numerous observations that support that fact, and none that I know of that dispute it.
Smokey there are NO scientific quantitative observations that support that fact.
None,
1. Scientific. Point me at the data source and the method used to compute it.
2. Quantitative. Numbers. as in sea ice area for each and every arctic sea.
And when you produce that data I will ask the proper skeptical questions. How was the measurement calibrated? are there multiple independent sources? what method was used?
was the method tested and calibrated?
Show me the data.
Hint. news clipping are not data.
Steven Mosher says:
September 6, 2012 at 12:29 pm
“Hint. news clipping are not data.”
Neither is computer model output.
From Steven Mosher on September 6, 2012 at 12:17 pm:
As Willis Eschenbach is fond of saying, QUOTE HIS WORDS. You know Willis can get quite upset, and rightfully so, about people saying what he said without quoting the exact words, and showing where he said them, since so many mis-paraphrase what he said and take it out of context.
So quote his words and show where he said them.
Or are you trying to slip something through before Willis officially returns from Burning Man while he’s not reading WUWT and doesn’t have the opportunity to respond?
tjfolkerts says:
September 6, 2012 at 10:59 am
You got beat at your little game and it bugs you so much, you stoop to mispelling my name. How juevenile.
Willis on the Null
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/01/the-ice-who-came-in-from-the-cold/
“The oddity about the data is what happens after 2007. Suddenly, there is a strong annual signal. I have put in vertical black lines to highlight this signal. The vertical lines show the end of September of each year. Before 2007, there is only a small variation in the data, and it does not have an annual signal. After 2007, the variation gets large, and there is a clear annual aspect to the signal. The area in September (the time of minimum ice) is smaller than we would expect. And the area in March (the time of maximum ice) is larger than we would expect.”
As I point out this challenges the null
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/01/the-ice-who-came-in-from-the-cold/#comment-401837
Willis agrees
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/01/the-ice-who-came-in-from-the-cold/#comment-401862
And then he tries to blame it on a software change.. But gets the wrong satellite
I point out that the data is the data and the null is busted.. but people are free to
speculate that it could be something else.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/01/the-ice-who-came-in-from-the-cold/#comment-402036
Then.. willis points to a software change on the wrong satellite
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/01/the-ice-who-came-in-from-the-cold/#comment-402047
And finally there is a promise to write and see if there is any evidence of a software change
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/01/the-ice-who-came-in-from-the-cold/#comment-402155
######################
Let’s wrap this up in a nutshell. Willis observed a phenomena in the ice area that challenges the Null. I pointed that out. He accepted that it would challenge the null. that is what the data shows.
he then suspected the sensor software. With no evidence of a software change ( These are put in notes for researchers) he tries to reject the data. It’s now been two years. And still no reply. The record stands. The data show a rejection of the null. Speculations about changes to software have not been confirmed. There is no record of a software change in advisories that PIs routinely post about their data products. There is no follow up on the letter to the PI.
The data stands. The null is busted. The null is busted until you or somebody else proves that the data is an artifact. Arm waving doesnt make data disappear.
thanks for the set up KD !!
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 2, 2010 at 12:00 am (Edit)
Steven mosher says:
June 1, 2010 at 10:46 pm
Dunno, looks like an issue for the null hypothesis. ice cycling like its never cycled before.
It would … if I thought it was real. I don’t, I think it is from the known change in the satellite and the way that is being dealt with by means of a new algorithm.
w.
#####################
1. Willis notes a cycling in the data.
2. I note that this challenges the Null.
3. He agrees. and ads the speculation that the data is in error.
A. There is no evidence that the data is in error ( so much for using data to falsify the null)
B. The speculation that it was a software change, has NO support anywhere.
So, there we have it. Data that contradicts the Null. When that happens do people pull out their book on Feynman and say.. REJECT THE NULL.
Nope. They attack the data.
Do they have any evidence to attack the data?
Nope. They speculate about a software change.
Do they have any evidence from the online records that software was changed?
Nope. They just speculate cause they want to keep the null.
Is there a way they can stop fooling themselves?
Yup.
Do they follow feynmans advice?
Nope.
Steven Mosher says:
September 6, 2012 at 12:17 pm
Finally, We are now seeing annual cycles in the data that Willis himself argued would falsified the “natural variation null”
=====================
So, the new conjecture is, if Willis is wrong I am right ?
I know you never tried to sell that to a missles guidance system.
@Smokey – Thanks, I love reading the same wire service story picked up by different small town newspapers. Excellent coverage of Australia!
And yet, none of them are about the free passage of shipping via the Northeast Passage… why is that, do you think? To the contrary, one article calls Murmansk Russia’s only ice free port. But we know that isn’t true today, don’t we, Smokey?
Why talk about the ice thinning to 6 1/2 feet when you are claiming the area was ice-free, as it is today?
Newspaper cuttings aren’t science, Smokey. Where are the error bars?
You have, however, shown that global warming was a minor concern for most of the 20th century, to which some responded with the happy thought that the northern continental US might become sub-tropical. Do you know how well wheat grows in sub-tropical weather, Smokey? I’m guessing not as well as it grows with the current climate.
But tell me, are you claiming that these clippings represent the low of a previous cycle? Was there a low in the 50s? In the 20s? How long is the natural cycle, Smokey?
Steven Mosher says:
1. The arctic does not routinely go through this kind of area wide retreat.
2. You have not defined the word “normal”. Your comment is not falsifiable and does not
count as a scientific statement.
A. With respect to your #1: You have not defined the word “routinely”. Your comment is not falsifiable and does not count as a scientific statement
B. With respect to your #2: See A.
Here is what we can say with evidence. We’ve seen nothing like this since 1979.
And then we can reflect on the irrelevance of such a short period to questions of “natural” and/or “routinely”, and yawn. With the evidence. Or at it.
Finally, We are now seeing annual cycles in the data that Willis himself argued would falsified the “natural variation null”
‘Willis himself’. Well, who needs evidence then?
LOL.
@ur momisugly Jack G. Hanks September 6, 2012 at 4:36 am :
Thanks Jack. I think I see what you are pointing out in your link at the end of August:
The other thing that occurs, caused by large ocean-wide storms and powerful winds, is the fragmentation of the ice. A flat layer of ice on meter thick, let’s stay in even meters and you can scale as preferred, will register by satellites as one square meter of area per one cubic meter of ice volume. However, if this is broken into long slivers of ice (the worst case) a ten meter long sliver will rotate to float exposing one square meter of area per ten cubic meters of ice volume since ice floats with only 1/9th of the volume above the water surface. That is an immediate loss of 8/9ths of the visible surface area even though the same amount ice is really there.
Even a one cubic meter, one meter on each edge, will rotate to expose just a regular tetrahedron on the surface with 42% of the surface exposed and all surfaces at angles to zenith that limits radiation being sensed from above (satellites). I feel the huge drop in the visible-to-satellite surface area just shows, to some degree, the error in satellite readings as the ice was fragmented into chunks of various shapes and no longer floating flat. For a while the ice was still present (may still be) but no longer visible from a radiation standpoint (IR, microwave passively) from far above.
Jack, please scratch or modify that portion of the comment as it stands about the sliver. That is of course not correct. Such a sliver will still float horizontally but would also still rotate to expose a decreased area to the volume present undeneath. (can’t believe I just wrote that, what was I just thinking?☺)
tried to debate this on the skpetical science site with ( guess what ) FACTS,,,, and ( guess what ) they did not like the FACTS and ( guess what ) ,,, they BANNED ME !! LOL !! I also smashed them on Glaciers, both their Site Manager and some bi-polar moron called “daniel” accused me of mis-representing one of the most basic facts in glaciology……and accused Jonathan Bamber ( Uni Bristol ) of talking rubbish !?!? …. guess I had better hang out here…..
David Ball says: September 6, 2012 at 12:41 pm
“You got beat at your little game and it bugs you so much, you stoop to mispelling (sic) my name. How juevenile (sic).
The irony — you misspell two words in one sentence, yet still assume that my typo is some evil plot against you.
You can’t seem to actually argue the facts, so you use a typo as an excuse to avoid addressing the issues. I point out specific facts, with quotes to back up both what I said and what you said, so you resort to ad hominem attacks. [sigh]
In 2006 and 2007 there were four or five undersea artic volcanos that certainly helped melt the ice in 2007. Could those volcanos be back this year and reporting of them suppressed?
Smokey says: “I have posted observational evidence repeatedly. ”
It is really YOUR job to explain your data, but I’ll look at a few if them (assuming you mean this link … http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/polar-meltdown/) Starting from the top, we have …
1
which is actually part of this …
if you look at 2007 and 2012 SIE minimuma, its not melt that is causing it, its weather. Melt really stops a major influence past mid July. That said, the Alarmists are too thick it seems to spot one real indictator, that is the gradient or the graph during June ( the month of max energy exchange ) , in that respect the “melt” of early summer 2012 is remarkable. but the minimum is not. Being fools they are jumping up and down about the minimum that is not really relevant but missed the real indicator this season. Typical. Ironic really because something strange did happen this year , but it did not happen in August/September,
tjfolkerts says:
“We should be concerned because the warming in Greenland of 70 years ago was part of the regional warming in the North Atlantic region…”
Thank you for pointing out that the Arctic is also a region. It has a regional climate, and being a polar region, it fluctuates much more than, say, an equatorial region.
And thus your entire belief in human causation falls apart.
tjfolkerts says:
September 6, 2012 at 3:18 pm
================
What do you want to do ?
Stir the pot, or have a discussion ?
If it is the former, it should be taken outside.
We are only guests here.
Well, that’s not true:
Or:
Not to mention the fact that your whole “Arctic ice cycle” schtick is somewhat contingent on their being a recovery at some point. Worse yet, you went further than predicting a recovery, you announced it had already begun:
You make my case so well I’ll leave you with the final word:
tjfolkerts says:
September 6, 2012 at 2:28 pm
You are not very worldly or informed. British spellings are outside your scope apparently. My observation of your behavior is not an ad hom. Trying to distance yourself from your pwning, I see.
Interesting Aug. 28th article:
http://www.france24.com/en/20120826-arctic-melts-developers-new-shipping-northern-sea-route-russia-china-ice-loss
The Northeast Passage. Seems it’s not quite as simple as it looks on the current Cyrosphere sea ice maps…. ice breaker escorts are mandatory.