NSIDC resumes sea ice plots with provisional data

Daily sea ice extent updates resume with provisional data

Because these are provisional data, the Sea Ice Index has not been updated and continues to display only F-17 data through March 31. We expect to make the F-18 data available in Charctic soon.

For general information on the intercalibration of sensors, see the documentation for Sea Ice Concentrations from Nimbus-7 SMMR and DMSP SSM/I-SSMIS Passive Microwave Data. This documentation will be updated when the intercalibration to F-18 is complete.

For more information on the F-17 satellite sensor issues, see our previous post.


This was posted several days ago, and it seems stable so far. Here is the latest plot:

NSIDC-arctic-may16-2016

Just an FYI for those of your that say the WUWT sea ice page is not updating, its a cache problem with wordpress.com.

Try pressing CTRL and the refresh button on your browser at the same time.

Advertisements

141 thoughts on “NSIDC resumes sea ice plots with provisional data

      • It also has several times the effect on planetary albedo, since Antarctic sea ice extends so much farther toward the equator.

      • Simon,

        To me that looks as if its fluctuating slightly above and below dead center in the middle of the normal range.

      • Simple Simon, please read your own charts. It’ is below last years level, but still well above “average”.

      • Simon’s plot is another exampole of the effect I described here. Simon linked to the original NSIDC plot with a http address. But because WP cached a version on 5 April 2016 for https serving, that is the version that you see (WP replaces it). If you just replace http by https in the link, you get the right thing, dated 16 May:

      • ps The https version of Simon’s plot above will now update as new data appears.

        I notice that on my browser at least the above images from rbabcock and dbstealey don’t appear, but if you click on them they do show in a new tab. That’s another variant of this problem. The source, Uni Bremen, doesn’t support https, so no certificate, and won’t appear in a https page, but can appear on their own. At the moment, I don’t think that can be fixed.

      • No.

        The Cryosphere and NSIDC data have remained the same (reporting the SAME AREA) every day since 5 May.

        Because they report the same area each day, but the 1979-2008 average Antarctic sea ice area for each day keeps increasing, the anomaly for each day keeps getting lower.

        The sensor (or the processor) is busted. Unless, somehow, you are willing to believe that the Antarctic sea ice is gaining – and losing – an area larger than Greenland overnight.

      • MarkW May 17, 2016 at 12:37 pm
        Simple Simon, please read your own charts. It’ is below last years level, but still well above “average”.

        Rather brave (or simple) calling me “Simple ” so publicly when you are so clearly the one who can’t see the this years line dips below the 1981-2010 average. It’s even more pronounced when you click on it. NS explains this effect.

      • “The Cryosphere and NSIDC data have remained the same (reporting the SAME AREA) every day since 5 May.”<

        No, I think you've been watching the Sea Ice page, where trhe images are frozen (from cache) as explained. The data has been updating – as shown in the Antarctic plot above. I think if you go to the source, you'll find current data.

      • RACook,
        Yes, Cryosphere seems to be messed up since 5 May, both N and S. NSIDC seems to have sensible results somewhere, as the above Antarctic plot and as the head post suggests, , so I’m not sure what the problem is there. It’s different to the local https caching issue.

      • yes but isn’t the volume in the Antarctic also decreasing?
        Regardless of what is happening in the Southern Hemisphere where only 10% of the population lives isn’t the record low ice extent (and volume) this year something that should be at least noted?

      • I’m sure you’re aware of the amazing resource Nullschool Earth.
        I am always puzzled and amused to be informed that the Arctic Ice is ‘melting’ rapidly, when I can see quite clearly (with my own eyes so to speak) that the regions where the alleged melting is taking place have not gone above 0˚C.
        https://earth.nullschool.net

      • Charles, that is a map of wind speed and direction, not of temperature, the colours according to speed.
        In any case, air surface temps can be below zero and ice can still melt if the water underneath the ice is above freezing.

        This year is the same as others in that the sea ice is melting when air temps in the Arctic are below freezing. NSIDC’s current plot is corroborated by Uni of Bremen, JAXA etc. They are all at record lows for this time of year.

      • barry says:

        They are all at record lows for this time of year.

        Wrong as usual. The “record” barry is picking refers to what? The satellite record?

        There is a record of much more global ice, during times when human emitted CO2 was non-existent (‘snowball earth’, and the great Ice Ages). There is also evidence that ≈6000 years ago Arctic ice disappeared during the summer — also well before human emissions could have been a cause.

        So barry ‘picked’ the very short satellite era. That’s only a few decades out of the entire record, so his “record lows” only have meaning as evidence that human CO2 is not the cause of fluctuating polar ice. But they’re all barry’s got, so that’s what he uses.

      • The Antarctic contains ≈10X the volume of Arctic ice.

        No. Antarctic sea ice is thinner than Arctic on average. Average thickness in the Arctic is 1-2 meters, whereas as it’s 2-3 metres in the Arctic (2008 figures – the difference will be slightly less now). Average annual extent is about the same: Compared to the Arctic, Antarctic melts out to lower concentration in summer and refreezes at higher concentration in winter.

      • barry makes another basic mistake: confusing sea ice with ice volume.

        As I posted, the Antarctic contains ≈10X greater volume of ice than the Arctic:

        Approximately 90% of the ice on earth is found either in Greenland or in Antarctica… For Antarctica, the approximate volume is 30,000,000 km3. For Greenland, it is approximately 3,000,000 km3.
        (source)

        There are varying estimates of polar ice volume, so the ’10X’ is a guesstimate. But it’s in the ballpark. The Antarctic contains far more ice than Greenland and the Arctic combined.

        Sea ice is much more seasonal, so the volume is what matters. Arctic ice is all sea ice, which naturally fluctuates. But the Antarctic, including Greenland, has permanent ice, including the deepest ice field on the planet. The Arctic simply doesn’t compare. Furthermore, the decadal trend line in Antarctic ice has been rising. That fact deconstructs the polar “ice” false alarm.

      • Also, does anyone else wonder about the large discrepancy between the incessant claims of “Arctic ice loss”, and satellite maps?

        For example:

        There’s no apparent difference, is there?

      • The “record” barry is picking refers to what? The satellite record?

        Yes, the topic of the post and every comment in the thread (except yours). You’ve shifted the goal posts, as usual.

      • barry, give it up. I made the second comment in this thread, but you didn’t like it. So you cherry-picked an extremely short time slice out of the entire record — the same thing the NSIDC is trying to do to claim that the current ‘ice’ variability is un-natural.

        Nonsense. The onus is on those making that claim, including you. But you can’t show that it’s anything unusual.

        Thus, your conjecture ipso facto fails.

      • barry makes another basic mistake: confusing sea ice with ice volume.

        Confused? Your comment was accompanied by a link to Antarctic sea ice, not continental ice.

        And my comment was correct for sea ice. You shifted the goal posts – again – as usual.

        What next? Ice on other planets?

      • Yes, barry, but you said my volume comment was wrong, and now that I showed I was right you’re just deflecting. You didn’t even understand the volume ratios, did you? And your chart above has no error bars. With current sea ice right at its average, there is no statistical difference.

        You didn’t know the difference between volume and seasonal ice. But at least now you know more than you did before I schooled you, so you’re better off.

        Finally, I still laff at the really stupid fixation on natural ice fluctuations. Is this really what the debunked climate alarmist argument has devolved to?

      • “the difference between volume and seasonal ice”

        Volume can apply to anything in 3 dimensions: sea ice, land ice, basket balls and glasses of water. Your comment is nonsensical.

        This whole topic/thread is about sea ice extent during the satellite record. You posted a comment on “ice” with a link to a graphic on satellite sea-ice extent. So I answered – correctly – based on sea ice. You switched topics to land ice volume, making the very obvious comment that there is more volume land ice in the Antarctic than the Arctic (Greenland), a different subject altogether.

        If you were talking about land ice volume, why the hell did you reference a graph to sea ice extent in that comment? If the answer is other than “I posted the wrong link,” or, “I got muddled up,” then I don’t see any point continuing. I’d consider evasion of the point disingenuous.

      • Ah. So you don’t understand the difference! And after I patiently schooled you, with links.

        Well, no matter, barry. You’re still floundering around like a fish out of water, trying to rescue your failed “ice” argument: for example, when I linked to a source that corroborated this statement: “The Antarctic contains ≈10X the volume of Arctic ice”, you replied:

        “No.”

        No? What do you mean, “No”?? My statement is verifiable. If you don’t like it, go argue with the professor who wrote the link. And after your lame “No” to my statement referring specifically to ice volume, you shifted the goal posts as usual, to “sea ice”. Because you’ve lost the volume argument — the only relevant metric in comparing polar ice. If it weren’t for your constant deflection, barry, your comments would be much shorter.

        So deflect all you want, barry. You lost this argument. Now you’re just trying to save face. But the fact is that Antarctic ice volume is an order of magnitude greater than in the Arctic. That’s the reason the alarmist cult always ignores the Antarctic — and the volume comparison — because if you ever admitted that the Antarctic debunks your ridiculous “Arctic ice” scare, that would end the last of your climate false alarms. Every other climate scare has been falsified.

        No wonder you’re angry about this, barry, you’ve lost the argument. In fact, the climate alarmist crowd has lost every scientific debate with skeptics. No exceptions. So now you cling to the bogus “sea ice” comparison like a drowning man clings to a stick. But sea ice is seasonal. Furthermore, unlike the Antarctic, the Arctic is entirely sea ice. Thus, it is not a valid comparison. But comparing the volume of each is valid. And comparing ice volumes shows how insignificant Arctic ice is.

        You can’t bear to admit that the skeptics that you hate so much were right all along. But that’s what Planet Earth is clearly telling us. So avoiding the comparison to the only relevant metric — ice volume — shows you’ve got nothing.

    • dbstealey says Also, does anyone else wonder about the large discrepancy between the incessant claims of “Arctic ice loss”, and satellite maps?

      The maps match the data and MODIS images validate ice loss.
      [snip. Enough. -mod]

      • Steven,

        Our esteemed host has already put the reputation of this award-winning blog at risk by allowing you to comment here.

      • “you didn’t show why YOU think Tony is wrong “
        Why do you think he’s right? He’s just waving a map and saying that he can evaluate the area by eye and get a more accurate result than the JAXA, NSIDC and DMI computers combined.

      • Steven Mosher
        May 17, 2016 at 9:35 am

        Yes hang the reputation of wuwt on the “work” of goddard
        ====
        what?? ROTFL
        go to your safe space Mosh

      • Steven, are you still trying to push that old canard?
        One person references goddard, and suddenly WUWT is endorsing goddard?

        Sheesh, are you really as desperate as your posts make you sound?

      • Nick, are you actually trying to claim that computers are always more accurate?
        After the fiasco of the various GCMs, I wouldn’t think you would be interested in crawling out on that limb again.

      • Nick Stokes
        May 17, 2016 at 10:34 am
        saying that he can evaluate the area by eye
        ====
        Pretty much…
        They are showing a loss of about 2 million k/sq…..
        ….twice the size of Egypt…two Egypts
        one Egypt lost in about a week

        If Egypt disappeared….would you notice?…..of course

      • Nick Stokes says:

        Why do you think he’s right? He’s just waving a map and saying that he can evaluate the area…

        Why are you misrepresenting the issue? The (false) claim was that the reputation of WUWT hangs on the reputation of another site.

        Anthony corrected that misconception. But you’re still pushing it. Why?

      • dbs,
        “But you’re still pushing it. Why?”
        No, the original post was by Latitude, promoting Goddard’s post. I’m just saying why that post is wrong, in response to Sunset. I said nothing about Goddard’s relation with WUWT.

      • Saul and Nick,

        Both your comments came after Mosher’s. We’re not mind readers here. If you’re replying to someone earlier in the thread, make it clear. Otherwise it won’t look like a non-sequitur.

        And Saul regroups:

        Rather than be an adult by admitting that error and move on…

        Show me where anyone in the alarmist crowd has admitted they were wrong about the ‘carbon’ scare, which is based on the CO2=cAGW conjecture. Or about the fact that every alarming prediction made has been flat wrong.

      • “If you’re replying to someone earlier in the thread, make it clear. “
        I made it perfectly clear. I quoted the words of Sunsettommy to which I was responding.

      • “Goddard has no presence here after he failed to admit to CO2 freezing out of air blunder a few years back.”

        References to goddard belong with comments about Chem trails.

      • Nick Stokes
        May 17, 2016 at 1:37 pm
        No, the original post was by Latitude, promoting Goddard’s post
        ===
        Nick are you sure you don’t work for some political party? What a spin….

        I wasn’t “promoting” anything…..It tied into this post by Anthony…..for some unGodly reason I thought there might be some adults that might want to discuss it

        Would you miss 2 whole Egypts on that map?…..I would…and no one would have to count pixels either

      • So just pile on and attack someone that can’t even come here and defend himself….

        …this was about their claim that one whole Egypt went missing in a couple of weeks
        The DMI maps are there……. 8% went missing in a week
        It does not show on their maps.
        You do not need a computer, you do not need to count pixels
        If 8% went missing, you “can evaluate the area by eye”….it would be obvious
        duh

        That’s all this was about…….

    • That first map on your link was made by Tony Heller, the pseudo-science blogger formerly known as Steve Goddard and it appears he eyeballed the differences between the two DMI maps and missed the areas where the decline took place. If he had used actual data to make his map it would not have looked the same.
      It is going to take more than just a name change to redeem his credibility.

    • Anthony Watts
      May 17, 2016 at 10:10 am

      Goddard has no presence here after he failed to admit to CO2 freezing out of air blunder a few years back.
      ====
      I thought you guys were friends??…..sorry

      No more links from me…

      • Saul,

        You are making the same misrepresentation as Nick Stokes. Read my comment above, which also applies to you.

        The entire language of the post you linked to said:

        The North Pole is so cold this summer, that new ice is forming in leads between ice floes.

        A picture accompanied it showing the new ice.

        That pretty much deconstructs the “disappearing Arctic ice” scare, no?

        Finally, you wrote above: Latitude was a participant in hilarious disaster of a thread.

        But Latitude’s entire ‘participation’ in that thread consisted of this: “LOL.

        You deliberately misrepresented what was written! Why? Is it because as usual, you have no credible facts to argue? Or was there another reason you needed to misrepresent it?

  1. “Just an FYI for those of your that say the WUWT sea ice page is not updating, its a cache problem with wordpress.com.
    Try pressing CTRL and the refresh button on your browser at the same time.”

    That doesn’t work on my computer using Windows 10 using Chrome and Opera browsers. What does work for individual graphs is to right click and open in a new tab

    • No. The Antarctic sea ice plots on WUWT Sea Ice Page are “stuck” on about the last good data for each plot: 24 March for the yearly plot for example.
      The others show a 0.453 anomaly -which is a 2 April data point;
      And that 0.224 anomaly with a 3.110 average sea ice area? That’s the 24 March value.

    • @dbstealey
      If you scroll up to Latitude’s comment at 9:30am it is obvious that I was replying to that comment…Moshers comment is on a thread that is indented from that comment.

      Obviously you have an irony deficiency if you don’t find “Goddard’s” failure on that link hilarious.. He and his commenters were all making fun of a blogger named “Reggie” for being wrong based on Goddard’s inability to differentiate the obvious difference between clouds and ice. Goddard/Heller then bans Reggie and the commenter who first pointed out the error. he was making
      I am not here to argue about climate change but the reality regarding ice in the Arctic is an issue I will discuss with those willing to do so without being disingenuous.
      .

  2. I think the cache problem with the Sea Ice page is one that has been cropping up at WUWT in various contexts recently. It results from the wordpress/WUWT conversion a few months ago to using https. An https page will not show an image without certificate, and blogs have many old links to images etc (http:) that don’t have that. So the WP solution is to cache the images with a WP https address. If for example, you look at the first Sea Ice plot, you see an old version. Its address. if you check, has https fololowed by i0.wp.com/nsidc.org… That is the cache version, andmay even date from the time of https adoption.

    But if you click on it, you go direct in another tab to the NSIDC site with http and nsidc.org etc. The problem is that the original site has updated, but the WP cache version hasn’t. It’s not a matter of browser caching, so avoiding the browser cache with Ctrl refresh won’t help.

    In this case, WUWT can fix this by amending the link URL on the page by just adding a s to the http. That works because NSIDC supports https. It might not work for all cases. It’s going to be a continuing problem, unless links are converted to https. Cache vrsions will remain frozen in time.

      • Yes, well, please let us know when you think you’ve succeeded. The joint issues of broken satellites and broken internet updating have been really annoying. And it’s not just the Sea Ice page – the same goes for the ENSO page too.

        I am starting to bookmark some of the source pages to get accurate views, but that is a shame because the WUWT reference pages have been fantastic resources for a few years. I think WordPress should be taken to task for insisting on moving to https – who needs secure connections for data like these?

        What with increasing advertizing around the internet slowing downloads, the whole web seems to be going to pot. \rant

        Rich.

      • “I am starting to bookmark some of the source pages”

        You can always click on the out-of-date plot to bring up the correct one from source in a new tab.

    • We “think” the Arctic sea ice area is accurate. But we cannot absolutely verify that.
      The Antarctic sea ice edge is much further from the pole than the arctic sea ice edge. Maybe the sensor is screwing up at the far edges of its scanning cone?

  3. Yes. There are several problems with the University of Illinois Cryosphere outputs for Antarctic sea ice.

    A few were sporadic – the output cycled wildly up and down, then seemed to stabilize for a few days.

    The latest is a “functional” failure that is more serious. Since 5 May, the output of their program that “reports” Antarctic sea ice area is “stuck” reporting an area of 4.6884 million square kilometers of sea ice.

    But, to understand what is going wrong on the various graphs and plots you see, you have to understand what is “measured”, was is “reported” and what is “calculated” and what is “plotted”.

    So. The Sea Ice anomaly is the difference between the measured value for that date and the averaged value for that date based on the average of 1979-2008 records. So the average for any given date will come frmo the program – NOT the daily measured value, right?

    Now, the anomaly for any given date is the difference between the “measured” value (which should change every day if everything is working right between the satellite and the various computers) and the “average” for that date. If the “measured value” for a date is wrong – then everything else that is “reported” will be wrong.

    But if the program fouls up, or the program fails to update the measured value, then everything downstream of that point “automatically” fouls up as well. And that is what has happened.

    On 9 April, Antarctic sea ice area was apparently correctly reported at 4.732 million sq kilometers (Mkm^2 for short). The difference between the average for that date (4.4598) and the measured value (4.7320) was the correct anomaly 0.3471 Mkm^2. (And “excess” Antarctic sea ice area about 1/4 the size of Hudson Bay – just for comparison).

    On 10 April the satellite reported an area of 5.8966 Mkm^2. Way toooo large. A difference overnight of 1.1646 An area the size of Hudson Bay had appeared overnight! Can’t happen = Bad satellite number.
    On 11 April, the satellite reported an area of 3.1738 Mkm^2. Waaaaayyyy too small. A difference overnight of 2.7228 An area larger than that of Greenland disappearing overnight? Can’t happen = Bad satellite number.
    On 12 April, the satellite apparently behanved itself and reported what “looks like” a rational number again of 4.6760.

    On 14 April, it again reported a bad value of 4.8301. We think it is wrong, just not as obviously wrong as 10-11 April.

    The next few days look valid. Then on 21-22-23 April, Hudson Bay disappeared again, then re-appeared magically.

    29 April? We don’t know. The 6.1198 reported value, and sea ice area anomaly of -0.0813 from an average value of 6.2011 Mkm^2 “might be” correct.

    But since 5 May, the “reported” Antarctic sea ice area has NOT CHANGED at all! It has been constant at 4.6884 Mkm^2. And – as you point out above – that is impossible. Today, 17 May, the “reported value” of 4.6884 is still the same.

    Now, the Antarctic sea ice anomaly obviously is calculated larger and larger every day as the “average” sea ice area is routinely and regularly increased every day by the University of Illinois program in Cryosphere. Yes, the expensive Global Warming university computer is too stupid to know its output is wrong.

    As an intelligent individual capable of thinking for yourself, you have to ignore the graphs and plots until their information is correct.

    Links for all this information, and a whole lot that we at WhatUpWithThat maintain are at the following:

    Sea Ice Areas, Extents, and Anomalies Arctic and Antarctic
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

    Discussions (and 1.7 million Comments) about the 3-4 Daily Threads:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com

  4. Antarctic Sea Ice Area – Reported by Cryosphere

    Area is in million of sq kilometers (Mkm^2)

    Year.Digit	DOY     Anomaly	Area	Avg  	Date	     Pct_Excess	Lat Sea Ice Edge
    2016.2219	082.0	0.130	3.092	2.962	22-Mar-16	4.4%	-68.0
    2016.2246	083.0	0.250	3.280	3.030	23-Mar-16	8.3%	-67.9
    2016.2274	084.0	0.224	3.334	3.110	24-Mar-16	7.2%	-67.8
    2016.2301	085.0	0.182	3.376	3.195	25-Mar-16	5.7%	-67.8
    2016.2329	086.0	0.226	3.490	3.264	26-Mar-16	6.9%	-67.7
    2016.2356	087.0	0.271	3.601	3.330	27-Mar-16	8.1%	-67.7
    2016.2384	088.0	0.324	3.721	3.397	28-Mar-16	9.5%	-67.6
    2016.2411	089.0	0.355	3.826	3.471	29-Mar-16	10.2%	-67.6
    2016.2439	090.0	0.344	3.881	3.537	30-Mar-16	9.7%	-67.5
    2016.2466	091.0	0.375	3.981	3.606	31-Mar-16	10.4%	-67.5
    2016.2493	092.0	0.434	4.121	3.687	01-Apr-16	11.8%	-67.4
    2016.2521	093.0	0.4528	4.2220	3.7691	02-Apr-16	12.0%	-67.3
    2016.2548	094.0	0.5039	4.3568	3.8529	03-Apr-16	13.1%	-67.2
    2016.2576	095.0	0.5318	4.4676	3.9359	04-Apr-16	13.5%	-67.2
    2016.2603	096.0	0.5063	4.5231	4.0168	05-Apr-16	12.6%	-67.1
    2016.2631	097.0	0.4367	4.5414	4.1048	06-Apr-16	10.6%	-67.1
    2016.2657	098.0	0.4185	4.6135	4.1951	07-Apr-16	10.0%	-67.1
    2016.2684	099.0	0.3207	4.6116	4.2909	08-Apr-16	7.5%	-67.1
    2016.2712	100.0	0.3471	4.7320	4.3849	09-Apr-16	7.9%	-67.0
    2016.2739	101.0	1.4368	5.8966	4.4598	10-Apr-16	32.2%	-66.4
    2016.2767	102.0	-1.3778	3.1738	4.5516	11-Apr-16	-30.3%	-67.9
    2016.2794	103.0	0.0309	4.6760	4.6451	12-Apr-16	0.7%	-67.1
    2016.2822	104.0	0.2762	5.0223	4.7461	13-Apr-16	5.8%	-66.9
    2016.2849	105.0	-0.0114	4.8301	4.8415	14-Apr-16	-0.2%	-67.0
    2016.2877	106.0	0.3869	5.3191	4.9322	15-Apr-16	7.8%	-66.7
    2016.2904	107.0	0.3857	5.4092	5.0235	16-Apr-16	7.7%	-66.6
    2016.2931	108.0	0.3917	5.5158	5.1240	17-Apr-16	7.6%	-66.6
    2016.2959	109.0	0.3801	5.5912	5.2112	18-Apr-16	7.3%	-66.5
    2016.2986	110.0	0.2655	5.5636	5.2981	19-Apr-16	5.0%	-66.6
    2016.3014	111.0	0.1939	5.5651	5.3712	20-Apr-16	3.6%	-66.5
    2016.3041	112.0	-0.0367	5.4241	5.4608	21-Apr-16	-0.7%	-66.6
    2016.3069	113.0	-1.2326	4.3255	5.5581	22-Apr-16	-22.2%	-67.3
    2016.3096	114.0	0.2318	5.8791	5.6473	23-Apr-16	4.1%	-66.4
    2016.3124	115.0	0.2387	5.9695	5.7308	24-Apr-16	4.2%	-66.3
    2016.3151	116.0	0.3406	6.1549	5.8143	25-Apr-16	5.9%	-66.2
    2016.3177	117.0	0.3218	6.2224	5.9006	26-Apr-16	5.5%	-66.2
    2016.3206	118.0	0.3924	6.3863	5.9939	27-Apr-16	6.5%	-66.1
    2016.3232	119.0	0.1209	6.2158	6.0948	28-Apr-16	2.0%	-66.2
    2016.3261	120.0	-0.0813	6.1198	6.2011	29-Apr-16	-1.3%	-66.2
    2016.3287	121.0	0.2782	6.5893	6.3111	30-Apr-16	4.4%	-66.0
    2016.3315	122.0	0.2342	6.6470	6.4128	01-May-16	3.7%	-65.9
    2016.3342	123.0	0.6456	7.1573	6.5117	02-May-16	9.9%	-65.7
    2016.3370	124.0	0.5212	7.1330	6.6118	03-May-16	7.9%	-65.7
    2016.3397	125.0	-0.2191	6.4946	6.7137	04-May-16	-3.3%	-66.0
    2016.3424	126.0	-2.1397	4.6884	6.8281	05-May-16	-31.3%	-67.0
    2016.3452	127.0	-2.2308	4.6884	6.9193	06-May-16	-32.2%	-67.0
    2016.3479	128.0	-2.3287	4.6884	7.0171	07-May-16	-33.2%	-67.0
    2016.3507	129.0	-2.4275	4.6884	7.1159	08-May-16	-34.1%	-67.0
    2016.3534	130.0	-2.5246	4.6884	7.2131	09-May-16	-35.0%	-67.0
    2016.3562	131.0	-2.6071	4.6884	7.2955	10-May-16	-35.7%	-67.0
    2016.3589	132.0	-2.7122	4.6884	7.4007	11-May-16	-36.6%	-67.0
    2016.3617	133.0	-2.8178	4.6884	7.5062	12-May-16	-37.5%	-67.0
      • @ dbstealey & charles nelson
        “Quite clearly the US science agencies are altering their data to suit the political agenda of their paymasters.”

        Your conspiracy theory ideation may reflect badly on this blog’s reputation, don’t you think Anthony Watts deserves better from you?
        This has been a very interesting year with regards to the Arctic so far and there is so much that could be discussed instead of silly conspiracy theories. For instance, the persistent high pressure over the Beaufort Sea that has lasted almost two months and it’s consequences.

        [Yes, I do, and I’ve removed both comments. This is nothing more than a sensor failure. Anyone that wants to claim otherwise can leave WUWT and go over to Goddard’s site where this sort of ranting is common – Anthony]

    • dradb. Your link refers to XmR charts for manufactured items. These are used for a completely different purpose. Anyway, the article you link to specifically says 3 sd is not appropriate for control charts.

  5. Why can’t they fly planes regularly over transects and get a measure from that? At both poles.

    Cost? Probably 0.01% of the sum of salaries of just US climate academics.

  6. I don’t know about the Arctic but I would expect the Antarctic ice to be lower than the last couple of years. It’s an El Nino year and even here in New Zealand it is very mild for this time of year. It will get very cold soon though.

    This is weather folks, not climate.

  7. charles nelson May 17, 2016 at 6:07 pm
    I am always puzzled and amused to be informed that the Arctic Ice is ‘melting’ rapidly, when I can see quite clearly (with my own eyes so to speak) that the regions where the alleged melting is taking place have not gone above 0˚C.

    At this time of year the melt is mainly from underneath and because of salinity the melt may occur at temps as low as 28 degrees F.
    It isn’t a conspiracy, you can see for yourself the melt that has occurred by checking out MODIS
    https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/?p=arctic&l=MODIS_Aqua_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor,MODIS_Terra_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor,Graticule

    • So the CO2 is not trapping heat in the ‘atmosphere’ then.
      That’s what I thought.

    • Not true. The Arctic sea ice melts from above with characteristic very shallow melt pools, the Antarctic sea ice melts from below with very few melt pools on the surface. That’s why the Antarctic sea ice has a higher albedo during their two respective summer melt seasons.

  8. BBAB. Don’t ask. Australian expression likeSnafu.
    The new graphs show compensatory Arctic down Antarctic up.
    Not as bad as their recent efforts but obviously a lockstep computer programme mis function or dysfunction.
    Nick should be able to confirm this. The percentage up in the Antarctic matches that of the percentage down in the Arctic from the new dates.

  9. In any case, as I predicted at the outset of Spring, it is the lower longitude areas that are getting wiped out this melt season. Higher longitudes appear to be holding their own, with still-substantial thick pack straddling the Date Line including the Bering Sea.

  10. Remember to hug this chart when you get the years without summers in Chicago and polar vortex events explained away by WH science advisers.

    • Good luck even getting started. The worst ice is going to be around the Date Line and for several hundred miles on either side of it.

      • Well they’re not leaving until the middle of August so I doubt whether there will be any ice in the Bering or Chukchi Seas on their route (the Bering Sea is mostly clear now).

  11. It seems we at least have a major topic of environmental alarm for at least a year. So, how far back does the record go to calculate 2 standard deviations and what was the Arctic Sea Ice extent satellite data when Greenland had a lot more Viking farmers?

  12. James at 48 May 18, 2016 at 9:10 am
    Higher longitudes appear to be holding their own, with still-substantial thick pack straddling the Date Line including the Bering Sea.

    The Bering Sea has no pack ice and has virtually melted out with the exception of a small amount of slush that is remnants of fast ice. Perhaps you are confusing the Bering Sea with the Chukchi Sea.
    For those readers who are interested in where this year’s ice loss has occurred, these links lead to daily regional ice graphs.
    Regional Ice Extent: http://bit.ly/1Th8Mbd

    Regional Ice Area: http://bit.ly/1TJ4GTy

  13. Here is a handy tool that allows the user to compare side by side MODIS images that enables one to see with their own eyes the changes in ice.
    To make changes, just tap the date on the image.
    http://bit.ly/1sVy8A7

  14. dbstealey May 28, 2016 at 10:00 pm
    Yes, barry, but you said my volume comment was wrong, and now that I showed I was right you’re just deflecting. You didn’t even understand the volume ratios, did you?

    You didn’t know the difference between volume and seasonal ice. But at least now you know more than you did before I schooled you, so you’re better off.

    That pegged the needle on the irony meter, you have a very poor understanding of the different parameters with regard to sea ice.

    • SfM,

      Thanx for your personal opinion. But my understanding is just fine. And just like barry, you’re avoiding the only relevant parameter when comparing polar ice: volume.

      • @dbstealey
        Are you claiming that the Arctic annual volume trend is not steadily declining downward?
        http://bit.ly/1XGCrdQ

        This is an animated visualization of the startling decline of Arctic Sea Ice, showing the minimum volume reached every September since 1979

      • It went gone down from 1979 until 2010, then Arctic sea ice area/extents has essentially been steady – oscillating about -1.1 Mkm^2, but not getting smaller.
        Arctic sea ice olume also decreased until 2010-2011. The nit has been increasing.

        Doesn’t fit your narrative, but only a person who can believe in a flat earth receiving an average sunlight amount every day believes in a linear climate trend.

      • Saul says:

        Are you claiming that the Arctic annual volume trend is not steadily declining downward?

        More deflection. I simply pointed out that Antarctic ice volume is ≈10X greater than Arctic ice volume.

        The Antarctic has around 90% of all polar ice. But the alarmist crowd only discusses Arctic ice; a classic case of cherry-picking only what suits them.

  15. Saul from Montreal

    Hmmmmn.

    In September, less Arctic sea ice means more cooling of the Arctic ocean.
    In October, less Arctic sea ice means more cooling of the Arctic ocean.
    In November, less Arctic sea ice means more cooling of the Arctic ocean.
    In December, less Arctic sea ice means more cooling of the Arctic ocean.
    In January, less Arctic sea ice means more cooling of the Arctic ocean.
    In February, less Arctic sea ice means more cooling of the Arctic ocean.
    In March, less Arctic sea ice means more cooling of the Arctic ocean.

    Now, I agree, between April-August, less Arctic sea ice might mean a little bit more warmth into the Arctic ocean.

    But, DMI’s weather forecasts for 80 north latitude since 1959 when their project began, the SUMMERTIME Arctic average temperature has decreased … just when your simplified and exaggerated theory of arctic feedbak is supposed to be working.

    So, your simplified theory of arctic amplification due to arctic sea ice loss is, well, simply dead wrong.

    Oh, by the way, back in June 2014, after 3 straight years of continuous Antarctic sea ice increase, just the “excess” Antarctic sea ice set an all-time record high. That Antarctic sea ice anomaly in 2014 exceeded the entire area of Greenland. And nobody said anything. It didn’t fit the CAGW get-more-government-grant-money requriements.

    • RACookPE1978 May 29, 2016 at 8:12 am
      your simplified theory of arctic amplification due to arctic sea ice loss is, well, simply dead wrong.

      ???
      You must have me confused with another blogger, my comments are only dealing with current conditions being observed. Dbstealey posted maps from a dubious source and I was pointing out how they contradict data from NSIDC, DMI and JAXA. He then tried to obfuscate using the Antarctic land ice which is a non sequitur. When called out on that he moved on with a straw man about volume trends.
      The subject of this thread is the resumption of NSIDC ice sea plots and maybe we should stick to that from this point forward. I am not here to make predictions about the future, that is something that is better left for the next ice thread.

      • The Arctic and Antarctic sea ice plots have been wrong (plotting bad data) since 5 May.
        Your conclusions and extrapolations about Arctic sea ice trends have been wrong since winter 2010-2011. Arctic sea ice volume has been increasing since that period, and arctic sea ice areas have oscillated strongly, but have not decreased since that time.
        Your conclusions and trends about Antarctic sea ice trends have been wrong (and apparently deliberately misleading) since 1992.

    • RACookPE1978 May 30, 2016 at 9:50 am
      The Arctic and Antarctic sea ice plots have been wrong (plotting bad data) since 5 May.
      Your conclusions and extrapolations about Arctic sea ice trends have been wrong since winter 2010-2011. Arctic sea ice volume has been increasing since that period, and arctic sea ice areas have oscillated strongly, but have not decreased since that time.
      Your conclusions and trends about Antarctic sea ice trends have been wrong (and apparently deliberately misleading) since 1992.

      Which sea ice plots do you allege have been plotting bad data since May 5? CT is down, NISDC has migrated to an new sensor (subject of this post), JAXA and DMI were never affected.
      Are you implying that every service that has reported extent and volume loss are in error? What has led you to that conclusion and could you please provide a credible source for that assertion.
      You state my conclusions about Antarctic sea ice trends since 1992 are misleading and wrong, please explain.

  16. Saul says:

    Dbstealey posted maps from a dubious source

    NOAA is a dubious source? OK then, we agree.

    This is all fallout from the second comment at the top of this thread, where I merely noted that the volume of Antarctic ice is about ten times greater than the volume of Arctic ice. “Volume”, get it? That’s all I wrote. I made no judgements. But just reading that fact causes major damage to the ‘Arctic ice’ scare. So ever since some folks have been trying to ignore that fact, and deflect the discussion back to their last remaining climate alarm: ‘Arctic ice!!’

    Naturally, that simple volume comment sent the alarmist clique here into ballistic orbit. And they’re still tap-dancing and deflecting, trying to find a way around that one-word observation.

    Here’s another observation: comparing Arctic sea ice with Antarctic land ice is an apples to oranges comparison. Since the Antarctic contains ≈10X more ice volume than the Arctic, and since one is almost all land ice, while the Arctic is all sea ice, it’s pretty disingenuous to keep posting ‘Arctic ice’ scares while ignoring the volume comparison.

    It’s almost June now, and Arctic ice cover still looks very healthy:

    Finally, there’s nothing wrong or improper with comparing polar ice volumes. It’s actually the most relevant metric. But alarmists don’t like it because it puts the ‘Arctic ice’ scare in perspective: “Arctic ice” is just another false alarm.

    So whenever the fake ‘Arctic ice’ alarm is mentioned, readers need to remember that it’s a non-problem, just like all the other false alarms in the ongoing climate hoax. Then they can make up their own minds.

    • dbstealey May 28, 2016
      Also, does anyone else wonder about the large discrepancy between the incessant claims of “Arctic ice loss”, and satellite maps?

      Nothing to wonder about since the Heller map is bogus, he did not use data but rather admits he “eyeballed” differences based on low resolution images he found on a webpage. Why didn’t he use actual data to generate the map? I posted a link to a similar map that was generated using gridded data which contradicts your map, which most likely explains why he chose this method.
      I notice you have avoided commenting about the volume trend anomaly graph, pourquoi?
      You’re making the same mistake as Goddard when you post that map in your recent comment. Why not post a concentration map or MODIS image? Even better, why not compare the current data to past years? Could it be that those things show that the ice is not quite as healthy as compared to other years? I also have posted links to graphs showing regional extent and area, both of which shows this year’s decline.

      ADS-NIPR Extent:
      1,220,829 km2 below 2000s average for this date.

      Ice Concentration Map:

      It is too early to be making predictions about this years ice minimum. So far the weather has not been kind to the ice but that could change. Last year the melt was off to a similar fast start but that changed in June. Anyway, what I cannot understand is why you can’t admit that current conditions in the Arctic have resulted in weakened ice. I am not claiming it has anything to do with climate change, that is something for scientists to examine in the future.

      • Saul,

        Give it up, you lost. The map is from NOAA. Go tell them it’s bogus.

        You’re still avoiding any discussion regarding polar ice volume — my original point. Every comment of yours has been tap-dancing around that, and trying to ignore the fact that ice volume is the relevant metric. Instead, you keep deflecting to your sea ice narrative, or “weakened ice”, or anything except admitting that the Arctic has only about one-tenth the ice volume of the Antarctic. So the Arctic is only a bit player.

        Original predictions that polar ice would disappear didn’t pan out. When it became clear that polar ice isn’t disappearing, the narrative morphed into “Arctic ice”. Now it’s harder than pulling teeth to get the alarmist crowd to admit that most polar ice is in the Antarctic. Or that evidence indicates that the Arctic was ice-free in summer, thousands of years before human emissions were a factor.

        All of that is studiously ignored, because it contradicts the ‘vanishing Arctic ice’ scare. But Arctic ice is still a non-problem. As we can see in the maps, there’s plenty of ice in the Arctic.

        The alarmist talking points constantly change to fit the current evidence. That isn’t science, that’s political advocacy. Big difference.

  17. dbstealey May 29, 2016 at 1:28 pm
    Saul,

    Give it up, you lost. The map is from NOAA. Go tell them it’s bogus.

    You’re still avoiding any discussion regarding polar ice volume — my original point. Every comment of yours has been tap-dancing around that, and trying to ignore the fact that ice volume is the relevant metric

    Strawman alert. I never said the NOAA map was bogus. It is low resolution and fine for giving the general public an idea where there is currently ice. However for individuals who desire a more detailed examination of current conditions, the sources I listed are much better.

    Guana alert: I have posted graphs showing volume decline as well as an excellent youtube video. It is obvious to anyone with even a room temperature IQ that volume has been trending down and currently is at the lowest level for this day of the year.

    Projection alert: You are attacking me with your biggest weakness which is a move out of the Karl Rove handbook. Ice volume is trending down and at record lows, so you make up BS about me avoiding discussion of volume when he is in fact it is YOU who refuses to admit the truth about volume loss Then to make things even more surreal you throw in another strawman about melt out or the infamous blue Arctic, something I never ever have discussed here, or for that matter any place else.

    Daily volume graph http://bit.ly/1U5XSQ8

    PIOMAS Sept projection graph http://bit.ly/27YbVBl

    • Saul says:

      …Ice volume is trending down and at record lows

      So what? In the 1970’s it was trending up. And whose “record”? Your cherry-picked, 30± year “record”? Accurate ice core records go back hundreds of thousands of years, and they show that there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening now.

      Everything being observed now has happened in the past, repeatedly, and to a much greater degree. Current parameters in ice and temperature have been exceeded many times in the past, before human CO2 could have been a factor.

      The current fluctuations are simply coincidental with the rise in CO2. There is no convincing evidence that supports your belief in human causation. Human CO2 emissions and polar ice fluctuations don’t have any verifiable cause and effect relationship. You’re taking two random events and assigning a specific cause. But you can’t back it up because it’s only your belief; verifiable evidence is non-existent.

      So your objections are merely your opinions, nothing more. And since scientific skeptics have nothing to prove, the onus is on you to produce credible evidence showing that the current fluctuations in polar ice are un-natural.

      But you have no empirical, testable evidence showing that human CO2 emissions are the cause of polar ice variation. Just because you say it means nothing. The onus is on you to produce credible, convincing evidence. But there is no such evidence.

      If more CO2 caused a decline in polar ice, the Antarctic would be affected far more than the Arctic because it has ten times more ice than the Arctic. <–(QED, son.)

      The climate Null Hypothesis has never been falsified. Your baseless assertions are not supported by empirical, verifiable, testable measurements showing that human activity is the cause of the current natural variation in Arctic ice. Because there is no such evidence. It’s only your sincere belief, but nothing more.

      • @dbstealey
        Accurate ice core records go back hundreds of thousands of years, and they show that there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening now.

        Seriously, are you claiming the there is sea ice in the Arctic that is hundreds of thousands of years old? Can I have some of what you have been smoking?

        But you have no empirical, testable evidence showing that human CO2 emissions are the cause of polar ice variation. Just because you say it means nothing. The onus is on you to produce credible, convincing evidence. But there is no such evidence.

        Strawman Alert: I have never made any claims regarding CO2 at this blog, that is another straw man you are ineptly using to save face. We are making some progress, we finally have you admitting there has been significant Arctic sea ice decline during the satellite era.

        And since scientific skeptics have nothing to prove, the onus is on you to produce credible evidence showing that the current fluctuations in polar ice are un-natural.

        I am a card carrying skeptic (JREF) and you sir are no skeptic. You have shown a minimal understanding of science. You are a one trick pony and when pwned you revert to that same tired past its due date argument.

        Funny coincidence, earlier today I did a goggle search for dbstealey. One of the results led me to a blog where you were the subject of a less than flattering discussion, One of the comments led me back to an ice thread at WUWT from August 2012. Reading your comments on that thread makes me think of the T word.
        I am going to let you have the last word and allow you to claim victory with your next comment.You are more to be pitied than laughed at…

      • Saul continues his endless deflection:

        …are you claiming the there is sea ice in the Arctic that is hundreds of thousands of years old?

        My comments referred to ice volume. How many times do I have to point out that “sea ice” is deflection?

        Next:

        …I have never made any claims regarding CO2…

        Then state your position. Is it that CO2 does not cause changes in polar ice?

        Next:

        …you sir are no skeptic.

        Sez you. As I’ve stated repeatedly for many years here, I am a Richard Feynman-type scientific skeptic. I’ve read copiously on Popper, Flynn, Feynman, and Langmuir. So what kind of ‘skeptic’ are you? A Bill Nye-type ‘skeptic’? A James Randi-type ‘skeptic‘? A ‘vaxxer’-type skeptic? (And FYI, James Randi is the antithesis of a scientific skeptic. He’s a commercial magician who constantly promotes the “dangerous man-made global warming” scare. As such he is neither a skeptic, nor credible).

        One thing is certain: you take far too much based on your belief, and you demand far too little verifiable evidence or measurements.

        Next:

        You have shown a minimal understanding of science.

        You’ve shown none. But you’re a Believer, so you don’t need to understand science or the Scientific Method. You don’t understand what true scientific skepticism entails.

        And:

        …earlier today I did a goggle search for dbstealey.

        Excellent! So now you’re part of my “goggle” entourage. I have to LOL at your fixation on me, when it should instead be a fixation on facts and evidence. But that would require being a real skeptic.

        And as always, you lack sufficient credible facts or evidence to win any arguments with me, or with other scientific skeptics. But why let that bother you? Your Belief is sufficient, and it doesn’t require thought or effort.

  18. Blockquote>dbstealey May 29, 2016 at 8:01 pm
    So what kind of ‘skeptic’ are you? A Bill Nye-type ‘skeptic’? A James Randi-type ‘skeptic‘? A ‘vaxxer’-type skeptic? (And FYI, James Randi is the antithesis of a scientific skeptic. He’s a commercial magician who constantly promotes the “dangerous man-made global warming” scare. As such he is neither a skeptic, nor credible).
    Let me get this straight, now you want to start a flame war with #JREF? Do you realize Penn and Teller are members and literally two of James Randi’s biggest fans? Is your anger towards Randi based partly on #JREF’s humiliation of the tilted graph producing dowser advocating “scientist”?

    FYI Your null hypothesis was falsified back in September 2012 by non other than Steven Mosher on a sea ice post. Four years later and you still don’t know the difference between sea ice and polar ice caps.

    You are doing your best to discredit Anthony Watts and this blog.

    • You are doing your best to discredit Anthony Watts and this blog

      Whatever the intent, that is the result. Worse, he’s a moderator here.

      What happened is that dbstealey talked about “ice” without specifying whether land or sea-ice, while posting a link to a sea ice chart, in reply to a comment about sea ice, on a thread about sea ice. When it was naturally assumed he was talking about sea ice, he started foaming about others being confused.

      Yes, of course there is far more volume land ice in Antarctica than anywhere else. What this has to do with an update on sensors measuring sea ice extent – the topic of this thread – only db seems to know.

      Cleaning up a few bits and pieces, seeing as the thread has strayed to these topics:

      Arctic sea ice volume has trended down over the satellite record, increased very slightly for the last few years, and is currently at a record low. But short-term phenomena are mainly weather. The long-term trends are what are interesting WRT climate.

      Antarctic sea ice extent has risen slightly over the satellite period. There is no authoritative work on Antarctic sea ice volume, as opposed to Arctic sea ice volume, for the simple reason that Antarctic sea ice, due to remoteness, is not as well monitored as Arctic. This is not a problem for extent/area monitoring, only for thickness/volume.

      db has mentioned something about a decadal increase in “ice” volume in Antarctica. He didn’t specify if he meant sea ice or land ice or both.

      If referring to land ice, then he may be thinking of the outlier Zwally paper from last year. If so, we have a deplorable situation where db does not know the difference between volume and mass. And if so, we have yet another example of single-study syndrome. db would be relying on an outlier study. That is not remotely skeptical.

      Does the difference between volume and mass make a difference? Absolutely. Zwally inferred increase of mass by volume (increased elevation of snow level). Snow compaction (density) is a major uncertainty in the paper. For db’s benefit, density is the ratio of mass to volume.

      And seeing as db’s comments on “ice” are often non-specific, let’s go a little further. Global glacial ice (non-ice sheet, non-polar) has lost more mass than the Antarctic ice sheet has gained (latter based on Zwally). Combined with Greenland mass loss, total global ice trend is clearly negative for the satellite period.

      (Presumably db will accuse me of cherry-picking the satellite period. But it’s not cherry-picking when that’s the topic of the article, and when that period that has orders of magnitude more information than any other period)

      db has to get into the habit of specifying what ice he’s talking about (glacial, sea ice, ice sheet etc). That at least would avoid confusion, as well as demonstrating honest, informed commentary. Better yet, he could stick to topics on threads.

    • I am going to let you have the last word and allow you to claim victory with your next comment.

      Easier than taking candy from a baby. ☺

      • @dbstealey May 30, 2016 at 6:22 pm
        I couldn’t let your lies about a great man like The Amazing Randi go unanswered. You are petty, bitter and full of hate. What is more pathetic than an uneducated blogger who can’t differentiate between the polar ice cap and sea ice? A cynic who doesn’t understand the meaning of volume. LOL, i have been made aware of another post where you didn’t know the meaning of mass.

        Steven Mosher falsified your silly null hypothesis in 2012. You sure did get angry and took it out on others later on that thread.

        https://archive.is/53iCq#selection-15081.0-15299.6

      • Saul says:

        … a great man like The Amazing Randi… heh. All bow down to the Great Randi!

        Apparently the magician is also a mesmerist. He’s got you believing (and I have faults like anyone, but lying isn’t one of them).

        And:

        You are petty, bitter and full of hate.

        That’s your fact-free response to losing the argument?? OK then, it’s not true, but whatever you want to believe is OK with me…

        And you actually believe that I…

        …can’t differentiate between the polar ice cap and sea ice? I’ll bet you’re cracking your knuckles in frustration. Really, your juvenile taunts are amusing, since it was you who deflected from my original comment:

        “The Antarctic contains ≈10X the volume of Arctic ice.”

        The rest of your impotent and false opinions are similar, so I’ll disregard them and leave you to your evidence-free True Beliefs. But I have to say, it gives me great pleasure to see that you’ve gone through years of comments to find something you believe might be relevant. You’re fixated on me! I love it! (But sorry, I didn’t re-read that 4-year old thread. Too long to bother with.)

        Then in your previous post, you wrote:

        Let me get this straight, now you want to start a flame war with #JREF?

        No, and you should look in the mirror before you accuse others of erecting strawman arguments. I didn’t bring up ‘jref’, and I couldn’t care less about whatever or whoever ‘jref’ is. They can speak for themselves if they want to. But I know who the Great Randi the magician is, and it’s obvious that he’s just another true believer in the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ scare. And it’s clear that he has no interest in adhereing to the Scientific Method, which weeds out false conjectures and hypotheses via skepticism.

        Skeptics are absolutely essential to scientific progress. Otherwise, we end up with witch doctors telling us what to think. Currently, the climate alarmist clique has taken over the role of witch doctors by promoting the “carbon” scare. We’re expected to take their word for it, and never question their lack of any credible evidence. See, they don’t want skeptics asking uncomfortable questions, because that leads to the realization that their emperor has no clothes.

        I have yet to find anyone who believes in “dangerous man-made global warming”, and who is also a scientific (Popper/Feynman-type) skeptic. The reason is simple: the belief that human (mainly CO2) emissions are the primary cause of global warming still has no data (measurements) to quantify that belief:

        Question: ‘How much global warming is due to AGW?’

        The only honest Answer: ‘We don’t know’.

        Since there is no verifiable, testable data that accurately quantifies AGW, it remains just a conjecture (one that I personally think is valid). But without any empirical, testable, verifiable and replicable measurements quantifying AGW, we don’t know how much global warming, if any, is caused by human CO2 emissions. But it cannot be very much, or we would have measured it by now. QED

        Also, if we had the data (measurements) necessary to quantify AGW, then the climate’s sensitivity to 2xCO2 would be known, and we would be able to accurately predict the degree and fraction of global warming resulting from ‘X’ increase in CO2.

        But we don’t know the sensitivity number. That is also just a guesstimate.

        Next: “FYI Your null hypothesis was falsified…”

        Thanx for your opinion. However, Climatologist Roy Spencer said that no one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability. In other words, the climate Null Hypothesis has never been falsified.

        Any contrary opinions fail unless they can produce verifiable data/measurements that overturn the Null Hypothesis. Yours doesn’t, it’s just an opinion. So far, there is no such data; there are no credible measurements quantifying AGW that are accepted by scientists on all sides of the issue.

        With no replicable data measuring the putative fraction of man-made global warming (out of all global warming, including the planet’s natural recovery from the LIA), the climate Null Hypothesis remains standing. It is the Alternative Hypothesis that is being falsified.

        Finally, your gratuitous insults are amusing (“Four years later and you still don’t know…”; “…doing your best to discredit Anthony…” &etc). They indicate your frustration and impotence due to being unable to support your minority point of view and beliefs with real world measurements. Wake me when someone accurately and verifiably quantifies AGW with data-based measurements.

        In God we trust, all others bring data.
        – W. Edwards Deming

        Without data, anyone who does anything is free to claim success.
        – Dr. Angus Deaton

        To measure is to know.
        – Lord Kelvin

      • Saul me boi, you’ve strayed off into ad hominem rants, and false accusations fueled by psychological projection and re-using my own phrases.

        Now I ask you, is that any way for one of my entourage to act? I don’t mind your fixation on me, in fact it’s a backhanded complement wghen someone is willing to take the considerable time to go through years of commments, hoping to find one that can be used in your own personal flame war. But I’ll correct you on whatever you found going back four years: I don’t get “get angry”. There’s no need when I have facts, evidence, obervations, and corroborrating links to support my demolition of the climate alarmists’ “dangerous man-made global warming ” scare (but if I’m mistaken and you don’t buy into that narrative, just tell me and I’ll back off. I don’t want to get one of my entourage upset. At least, not any more upset than you already are).

        your lies about a great man like The Amazing Randi

        You are… petty, bitter and full of hate… pathetic… an uneducated blogger who can’t differentiate between the polar ice cap and sea ice… A cynic who doesn’t understand the meaning of volume…. your religion of pseudoscience…

        OK, by the numbers: : Heller/Goddards map is fact free propaganda…

        As I pointed out, that map was produced by a government agency. But I agree that government agencies like NOAA, NASA/GISS, NSIDC, and others emit alarmist propaganda.

        Next: Roy Spencer is a young earth creationist…

        And you worship a magician and fake skeptic, “The Great Randi”. Pot, meet Kettle…

        Next, Saul posted this gem:

        (Dr. Roy) Spencer posted on his blog that he was going to start referring to those who referred to those questioning the mainstream view of global warming (such as Spencer himself) as “climate change den!ers”… The Anti-Defamation League responded with a statement condemning Spencer’s comparison.

        The ADL said Dr. Spencer’s comment was “outrageous and deeply offensive,” LOLOL!!

        ‘Scuse me, but a nationally syndicated columnist, Ellen Goodman (what’s Goodman’s religion?), specifically stated that anyone who questioned man-made global warming was a “denier”, and she explained that she was using the word in its ‘National Socialist’ context.

        If Saul has a statement by the ADL reprimanding Goodman for her coulumn, I’m asking him to post it here. Otherwise, we can add it to Saul’s ‘Pot/Kettle’ score card.

        Next: UAH orbital degradation….enough said Huh? Where did that non-sequitur come from? But the fact is that the satellite orbital changes were slight, and were corrected a while back. Try to stay current.

        Next: Have you come up with a new null hypothesis to replace one Steven Mosher falsified?

        As usual, the alarmist contingent misunderstands how skepticism works: Skeptics have nothing to prove. The onus is on those promoting conjectures like CO2=CAGW. The climate Null Hypothesis has never been falsified. If anyone believes otherwise, they don’t understand the Null Hypothesis. To help those folks, I’ll explain:

        AGW may exist, but the Null Hypothesis will not be falsified unless AGW is a large enough effect to cause changes that exceed past climate parameters such as global temperature. In other words, current changes due to putative man-made global warming must be measurable. But so far no one has quantified any such changes that exceed past parameters. In fact, for the past century and a half, global temperatures have been exceedingly flat:

        But just prior to the current Holocene, global temperatures fluctuated by tens of whole degrees, within only a decade or two — well before any human emissions could have mattered. Thus, the Null Hypothesis remains unfalsified. That’s science by observation, and it destroys any claims that the Null Hypothesis is wrong.

        Next, no one has ever falsified the climate Null Hypothesis. Someone may eventually falsify the Null Hypothsis. But that would require verifiable, testable measurements quantifying AGW, which do not currently exist. Recall that… Without data, anyone is free to claim success.

        Next (we’re only at #4, but I’m enjoying debunking alarmist nonsense, like): Arctic sea ice volume, extent, area and concentration are all at record low levels since scientific measurement have been made…

        And as I’ve asked before: ‘So What?’ There is good evidence showing that the Arctic has been ice-free in the summer, before human emissions mattered.

        More ‘So What”: An ice-free Arctic would be a net benefit, with much less fuel required for ships making much shorter transits. It would save time. And it would not raise sea levels one micron. So what’s the downside? Other than more wild-eyed predictions that never come true?

        Next, #5: Newspaper and magazine clippings are not data anywhere outside your religion. of pseudoscience

        We would need to be able to see into Saul’s head to know what he’s thinking there. But if I’m guessing correctly, he’s implying that reported observations and past statements by scientists from almost a century ago are not admissable here. Why not? The reason is that they show the same climate scares keep appearing. And they’re no more valid now than they were fifty or a hundred years ago. Saul doesn’t want folks to see that there’s nothing new under the sun.

        #6: The volume of ice sitting on the continent of Antarctica is nothing more than useless trivia in a discussion regarding the status of Arctic Sea Ice.

        Then find another thread, and let the adults discuss polar ice. Saul doesn’t seem to understand the relationship between the hemispheres. That, or he doesn’t like anyone making the comparison, because it makes his “Arctic ice” scare look pretty silly.

        #7: Antarctic Sea Ice extent, area and volume are currently below average for this date

        Hey! I thought Saul didn’t want Antarctic ice discussed!

        #8: You have not posted links to data only useless trivia…

        I think Saul is going blind. BecauseI would have supposed that in combing through years of my comments that he would have seen the scores of data-based links I’ve posted. For example, this chart shows that global sea ice continues to fluctuate around its long term average (and remember that the scare is over global warming, not regional effects such as the Arctic).

        Note also that there’s no acceleration or deceleration. Therefore, Arctic ice variability is natural and normal. It is offset by the upward trend in Antarctic ice growth, thus the global ice trend is flat. Another scare debunked with “data”. And I have plenty more to post, if necessary.

        #9: Northern Hemisphere sea ice decline cannot be explained by natural variation.

        I just love these baseless assertions. They are fact-free, data-free, and of course, natural variability is the default explanation per Occam’s Razor. But since the alarmist cult has the problem of Antarctic ice, they fall back on what they believe.

        Sorry, this is a science site. Maybe Saul would be happier at a pseudo-science blog like the one run by “The Grat Randi!” ☺

        #10: You are a soc*pup** wearing climate troll

        Having no credible data-free arguments, Saul reverts to his usual ad hominem logical fallacy for an argument.

        Saul me boi, name-calling is not only juvenile, it demonstrates that you’ve got no good arguments. If you could show conclusively that the natural decline in Arctic ice was unoique, or that it is being caused by CO2 emissions (which magically avoid the Antarctic), then you would post that evidence. Instead, you like to call people who merely have a different point of view “Liars” and ‘trolls’, and ‘sockpuppets’ <–(by someone who insists on being anonymous).

        Saul, you're in way over your head here, and I think I know why: you're getting your misinformation from fake science blogs like 'skeptic.com', which is as deceptively mis-named as 'skepticalscience'. They are both the antithesis of what they purport to be.

        You only showed up a few months ago, so it will take some time for the scales to fall from your eyes. Stick around here for a while, you might learn some real science.

  19. 1) Heller/Goddards map is fact free propaganda from your religion of pseudoscience.

    2) Roy Spencer is a young earth creationist and according to Wiki is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states that “We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Religion based science is pseudoscience

    February 2014 Spencer posted on his blog that he was going to start referring to those who referred to those questioning the mainstream view of global warming (such as Spencer himself) as “climate change d*****s” as “global warming N***”, contending that “…these people are supporting policies that will kill far more people than the N**is ever did. The Anti-Defamation League responded with a statement condemning Spencer’s comparison. Shelley Rose, the ADL’s Southeast Interim Regional Director, argued that the comparison of global warming advocates to N*z*s was “outrageous and deeply offensive,”

    UAH orbital degradation….enough said

    3) Have you come up with a new null hypothesis to replace one Steven Mosher falsified?

    https://archive.is/53ihCq#selection-15081.0-15299.6

    4) Arctic sea ice volume, extent, area and concentration are all at record low levels since scientific measurement have been made…To measure is to know.– Lord Kelvin

    5) Newspaper and magazine clippings are not data anywhere outside your religion. of pseudoscience

    6) The volume of ice sitting on the continent of Antarctica is nothing more than useless trivia in a discussion regarding the status of Arctic Sea Ice.

    7) Antarctic Sea Ice extent, area and volume are currently below average for this date

    8) You have not posted links to data only useless trivia about the ice cap and a discredited map made by a weirdo who believes in dry ice snow in Antarctica..Without data, anyone who does anything is free to claim success.– Dr. Angus Deaton

    9) Northern Hemisphere sea ice decline cannot be explained by natural variation.

    10) You are a soc*pup** wearing climate troll

      • DBStealey, challenging Saul from Montreal.

        #7: Antarctic Sea Ice extent, area and volume are currently below average for this date

        Now, now. I’m not sure where Saul’s claim is coming from: Every source I’ve looked at for Antarctic sea ice extents or area has been fouled up for various dates ranging from 31 March to 5 May. Simply put, nothing is reliable right now down there. However, since every different lab actually just “re-interprets” the data from the same satellite, it makes no sense to claim any reliable data for the last while.

        Now – the antarctic sea ice HAS BEEN low since 1 September 2015. But, as the El Nino warm spot decreased in February-March, the very rare negative Antarctic sea Ice areas returned to their 20 year “above average” of record-setting highs. Were there jumps in April? Absolutely! But where did sea ice the area of Greenland go over night? Did it melt and re-freeze over a three day span, or did the satellite foul up?

        I too wonder where his information came from.

        Oh, by the way: Less Arctic sea ice means more global cooling 7 months of the year.
        More Antarctic sea ice means more global cooling cooling – everyday of the year.

        Hey! I thought Saul didn’t want Antarctic ice discussed!

  20. Every source I’ve looked at for Antarctic sea ice extents or area has been fouled up for various dates ranging from 31 March to 5 May

    SSMI sensor F17 is on the blink, and that supplies NSIDC and Cryosphere Today data. UNI of Bremen use a different satellite sensor, which is working fine. dbstealey provided the link to their Antarctic sea ice product in the second post in this thread.

    (If the link is broken, right click on graphic and open in a new tab. Change https to http to display the graphic)

    This gives us Antarctic sea ice extent, which is indeed below average currently.

  21. Good, we’re finally discussing facts.

    The rise in Antarctic ice is not expected to go straight up constantly. A new all time high record in Antarctic ice was set less than 2 years ago:

    NASA even wrote about it. And here’s another view of the recent record high in Antarctic ice:

    And year over year temperatures in the Antarctic are steadily declining:

    And for Arctic worry-warts, the trend in Arctic ice is nothing to be concerned about:

    Arctic temperatures are also normal (click on any year for comparison). Therefore, any ice loss is due to other factos, such as wind, currrents, and varying snowfall patterns.

    I have plenty more charts like those. They all show the same thing: that “ice” alarmism is another trumped-up scare that doesn’t withstand even mild scrutiny.

  22. ,

    Arctic temperatures are also normal

    That is not true anywhere outside your personal alternative version of reality. That graph only covers a very small percentage of the Arctic, the area north of 80 degrees. In addition that graph clearly indicates that the temperature north of 80 degrees north has had a positive anomaly dp far this year.
    Back in reality, the GFS 850 hPa does not look good for the health of ice in the ESS and Chukchi Sea.

    Check out the temp anomalies in Siberia and Alaska…or anywhere in the Arctic
    http://cci-reanalyzer.org/Forecasts/#ARC-LEA

    • Saul sez:

      That is not true anywhere outside your personal alternative version of reality.

      ^That^ is Saul’s über-lame response to my link showing Arctic temperatures since 1958.

      Poor Saul has no clue; he believes that his baseless assertion trumps facts. And since he has no global facts that refute what I posted, Saul has nothing but his impotent snark, as demonstrated above. That’s why Saul loses every argument: his opinion is no match for the facts.

      Saul just cherry picked a few limited areas like the Chukchi sea, Siberia, and Alaska — ignoring the fact that the debate concerns global effects. Regional effects like those change constantly.

      And here’s the Antarctic temperature record:

      As anyone can see, polar temperatures are normal. Thus, they are not the cause of the natural decline in Arctic ice, which is due to variations in ocean currents, snowfall, and winds. But that fact deconstructs the man-made global warming scare, and naturally the alarmist cult is unhappy with facts.

  23. Looks like the month of May is an all-time low for Arctic sea ice.

    ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r00_Northern_Hemisphere_ts_4km.png

    That’s the last 30 days at 4km resolution. But MASIE warn not to use the data for long-term (1979-2016) comparisons. However, all Arctic sea ice extent products, regardless of the satellite sensor source, show May 2016 as the lowest, so it seems pretty clear.

    Long-term trends (satellite record) show a decline in every month for Arctic sea ice. The opposite is true for Antarctic, although not every month in the Antarctic satellite record has a statistically significant trend (unlike Northern sea ice). This is mainy because Arctic sea ice has declined about 4 times as much (annually) as Antarctic has gained.

    IOW, annual global sea ice is down over the long-term.

    Way to soon to call the September sea ice minimum in the Arctic. It could possibly be a record-breaker, but that is by no means certain.

    Mind you, there was no sea ice at the poles 4.5 billion years ago, when the planet was a cauldron with 230C temps at the surface. There is no evidence that this damaged civilization or harmed humankind.

Comments are closed.