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:
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
^Qui tacet consentire videtur.^ “Silence is concurrence”. ☺
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:
http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2015/10/Global-2-copy.jpg
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.
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
[snip – inappropriate response by a moderator who should know better – Anthony]
What do you suppose happens to sea ice when you combine “somewhat warmer ocean water” with “somewhat above freezing point air”?
It melts.
http://imgur.com/863Kob6
[snip – posted after comments automatically closed – Anthony]
test reply June 2nd, 3:28PM PST
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.
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/extent_s_running_mean_amsr2_regular.png
(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.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
See that graph I just posted ..it won’t update at this blog. Nick Stokes patiently explains why this happens at WUWT. It works fine and is updating daily at the NSID site and at ASIF.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/17/nsidc-resumes-sea-ice-plots-with-provisional-data/comment-page-1/#comment-2216991
http://imgur.com/lvC7KKX
[snip – posted after comments automatically closed – Anthony]
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:
http://joannenova.com.au/wp-content/arctic-sea-ice-dec-2015.gif
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.
,
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.
http://imgur.com/KY6S6Xt
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:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/70-90S%20MonthlyAnomaly%20Since1957.gif
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.
[snip – posted after comments automatically closed – Anthony]
http://imgur.com/kPvbGyZ
[snip – posted after comments automatically closed – Anthony]
Beaufort Sea ice continues its unprecedented decline since scientific measurments
http://imgur.com/pkqGv6N
http://imgur.com/wX4TjUU
[snip – posted after comments automatically closed – Anthony]
[snip – posted after comments automatically closed – Anthony]
[snip -posted after comments automatically closed -Anthony]
[snip – posted after comments automatically closed – Anthony]
It will be interesting to watch the already deteriorated EEC react to the forecasted warmth and sunshine. Expect the already significant ponding to accelerate
https://imgur.com/74Fzk4A
[snip – posted after comments automatically closed – Anthony]
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.
[snip – posted after comments automatically closed – Anthony]