Inconvenient: Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth In September

In looking at the sea ice minimum in the Arctic 2016, I found this from NSIDC:
‘During the first ten days of September this year, the Arctic lost ice at a faster than average rate. On average, the Arctic lost 34,100 square kilometers (13,200 square miles) per day compared to the 1981 to 2010 long-term average of 21,000 square kilometers (8,100 square miles) per day.’ – http://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/2016-ties-2007-second-lowest-arctic-sea-ice-minimum
Now I am no scientist but something is wrong here. You cannot achieve the growth rate reported by NOOA over September when NSIDC claim major losses. If NSIDC is correct then there are 14 days to get to the NOOA figure.
What’s going on here? Can some smartie pants please explain.

“You cannot achieve the growth rate reported by NOOA over September when NSIDC claim major losses.”
_______________
There’s no contradiction. Your NSIDC quote refers to conditions between the 1st – 10th September. The NOAA figure refers to conditions from 1st to 24th. The ice reached its minimum extent relatively early this September, meaning that there has been plenty of time for it to expand again.

Obvious Freudian slip – it’s that “little bitty tear” that let them down:

Thanks for the truth! There is nothing scientific about environmentalism consensus.

I hate to say this but none of the participants to this Arctic review knows anything about the Arctic. I have already written two comments to straighten out peoples’ Arctic views this week and am getting tired of it. Your basic problem is that you are non-readers. None of you bothered to read my 2011 article in Energy and Environment, volume 22, issue 8. But you are not alone – the “experts” also are screwed up. Below I will go over Arctic history one more time but recommend that you read the article itself for more.
Starting from the beginning, Kaufman et al. [1] studied Arctic history by analyzing sediments in small circum-Arctic lakes. They determined that for the last 2000 years there was nothing notable there except for a slow, linear cooling. But this changed at the turn of the twentieth century when an unexpected heat wave arrived. It caused melting but was soon interrupted by a thirty-year cold spell in midcentury. This lasted from 1940 to 1970, after which warming returned. It is this late warming phase that everybody has been reporting on. It starts in the seventies and no one has any idea of what happened before. Global warming theory based on the greenhouse effect predicts that the Arctic should warm faster than the rest of the glob does. But when models are used to calculate this difference it turns out that the actual warming is twice as fast as predicted by rhe greenhouse effect. To try to resolve this difference the “Arctic amplification” idea was suggested. It predicts that once the ice has melted the darker ocean exposed absorbs more sunlight and speeds up warming. Polyakoff et al. [3] even attempted to discover this Arctic amplification directly but were unsuccessful. As David Whitehouse demonstrates graphically, Arctic warming by 2015 could be traced back for 36 years of steady, linear warming. At the same time atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by 20 percent. .If one was being “strict,” he says, using data based only on the arctic ice and CO2 information, one would have to conclude that there is no correlation between Arctic sea ice extent and atmospheric CO2 levels! But he rejects and wanders off course looking for some alternate explanation which he never finds. He is an examp;e of someone brainwashed into disbelieving that carbon dioxide can ever fail to produce its vaunted greenhouse effect. And when he stumbles onto clear proof that Arctic warming cannot be greenhouse warming he does not know what to do and simply rejects the logic of science staring him in the face. He is not alone – there are thousands of scientifically trained people writing for the climate change movement who also fail to understand the logic of science and end up spouting pseudo-science. In the Arctic warming case the greenhouse theory is out and we need an alternate theory. There are not many choices and I found only one of them that fits: a sudden rearrangement of North Atlantic current system that caused the northward flow of the Gulf Stream to more directly enter the Arctic Ocean. Its cause is unknown and I suggest using some of the 2.6 billion dollars we spend for climate research to find out what is going on. I bet there is more than just ocean circulation involved. There is no doubt now that warn Atlantic water entering the Arctic Ocean is causing the warming. Spielhagen et al. [2] made an Arctic expedition and reported in 2011 that they had made direct measurements of the temperature of Atlantic water flowing into the Arctic. It’s temperature, they say, exceeded anything seen in the Arctic before this. That takes care of that but the mid-century cold wave needs an explanation. It is shown as figure 2 in my paper (Also as figure 20 in “What Warming”) [4, 5]. The most likely cause of it is a temporary return of the original Atlantic flow pattern. It is not out of the question that natire may send us another such cold wave, or, worse yet, bring back the original flow pattern for good. The mid-century cold wave may also have wider influence, not confined to the Arctic. As figure 2 shows its starting point is the year 1940. Looking at NOAA global temperature chart we notice that it shows a warming period ending in 1940. The early forties that follow are shown as a warm peak. But this is wrong because that was the time of World War 2. It was fought in bone-chilling cold. As an example, the opening battle of the Finnish Winter War in January 1940 was fought in minus 40 Celsius and one meter of snow. German troops under Moscow in 1941 froze to death in their trenches and even the Battle of the Bulge in 1944/45 was fought bin unusual cold. NOAA does show cooling but just after the war ends. I propose moving it back to `940 where it belongs. And when this is done we find that the start of WWII cold wave coincides with the mid-twentieth century cold wave in the Arctic. According to NOAA chart the global temperature never reached the peak it had in 1940 until about 1980. The Arctic cold spell ended in 1970 when current warming begins. Allowing for some lag see distinct parallels between the Arctic temperature history and comparable NOAA global temperatures that could profitably be investigated using Uncle Sam’ billions intended for climate research.
[1] Darrell S. Kaufman, David P. Schneider, Nicholas McKay, Caspar M.
Ammann, Raymond S. Bradley, Keith R. Briffa, Jonathan T. Overpeck, Bo M. Vinther, Arctic Lakes 2K Project members, “Recent warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling” Science 325:1236-1239 (4 September 2009)
[2] Robert F. Spielhagen, Kirstin Werner, Steffen Aagaard Sorensen,
Katarzina Zamelczyc, Evgenia Kandiano, Gereon Budeus, Katrine Husum, Thomas M. Marchitto, & Morten Hald, “Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water” Science, 331:450-453 (28 January 2011)
[3] I.G. Polyakov et al “Observationally based assessment of polar amplification
of global warming” Geophys Res. Lett. 29:1878
[4] Arno Arrak, “Arctic Warming is not Greenhouse Warming”
E&E 22(8):269-283 (2011)
[5] Arno Arrak, “What Warming?” (CreateSpace 2010)