From the “Arctic is screaming louder thanks to Mark Serreze and his adjustment shenanigans” department, I don’t think this is going to fly. Some of the adjustments are as much as 1.2 million square kilometers of sea ice, which is as much as some yearly variations. -Anthony
Guest essay Tom Wiita
I came across this month’s page posted at the NSIDC web site detailing the sea ice findings for the current month. It mentioned a revision to the way NSIDC calculates the sea ice area which was made last month. Curious, I went to last month’s page to check it out.
As a veteran NSIDC-watcher, before reading the page I made a falsifiable prediction bet with myself. I bet that this change in computation method increased the rate of decline of arctic sea ice compared to the rate of decline calculated under the old method. If the rate was greater, I win. If the rate of decline was lower, I lose and my prediction is falsified. You know, like in real science. This time I’m applying it to a social science study, of the behavior of NSIDC.
Would you believe it, I won my bet!
Here’s the link to the page:
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2017/11/freezing-in-the-dark/
And here’s the relevant section describing the change copied straight off their public web site:
“Revised computation of the monthly mean extent
Figure 6. This chart compares the monthly October Arctic sea ice extents generated from the old (black dashed line) and the new (solid black line) averaging method. Sea Ice Index data. About the data Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center High-resolution image
We have updated the way the monthly average sea ice extent is calculated in the NSIDC Sea Ice Index, the source for our sea ice extent estimates. The monthly average total extent (and area) are now computed as an average of the daily values over the month. Historically, the monthly mean sea ice extent has been calculated based on the monthly mean averaged sea ice concentration field. While there is a rationale for both approaches, the new method is more intuitive and eliminates unusual and unexpected results in months when there is rapid ice growth and retreat. Most of the new monthly mean extents are smaller than the previous values with a mean extent difference between -0.45+0.24 and -0.23+0.16 million square kilometers for the Arctic and Antarctic, respectively. The largest differences for the Arctic occur during the month of October due to the rapid ice growth rates typical at that time of year, with the largest difference of -1.20 million square kilometers in October 2012. Changes in rankings and trends were much smaller because the new method tends to affect all years of a given month in a similar manner. October is also the month with the largest trend difference, increasing in magnitude from -7.4 percent per decade to -9.3 percent per decade. Changes in Arctic trends for other months are much smaller.
Similarly, in the Antarctic, differences in averaging methods results in the largest changes during the month of December when the ice cover is rapidly receding. The largest difference of -1.27 million square kilometers occurs in December 1981. The largest changes in the trends are for January and December with a change in value from +2.7 to +3.5 and +1.2 to +1.9 percent per decade, respectively. For more detailed information on the impacts of the revised averaging methods on trends and rankings, please see NSIDC Special Report 19.”
Let me just point out a couple of things that stood out to me in the explanation above.
- First, the bet-winning difference is that sea ice decline goes from 7.4% per decade to 9.3% per decade. Mark Serreze will be so happy – the arctic is screaming 1.9% louder per decade.
- Second, all the values are lower after the revision. Every single one. “It’s worse than we thought!”, worse than we measured, worse than we reported to the world, worse, worse, worse. This has got to be one of the largest classic “worse than we thought” examples driven solely by a change in methods. They’re still after all looking at the exact same satellite pictures.
- Third, look at the magnitudes of some of those differences. I mean, we missed that there were 1.2 MILLION fewer square kilometers of sea ice than we thought? Only 5 years ago in 2012? And we’ve been tracking this since 1979? And this is settled science? Come on!
Now, to be fair, the computation change giveth and the computation change taketh away.
Antarctic sea ice extent is growing faster after this change. But of course, as usual, they put anti-narrative results someplace safe, like into Antarctic sea ice growth, where they’ve always had a problem and already have multiple explanations/excuses: climate change is causing that, too; it’s going to turn around real soon, just you wait; ozone hole changes; more fresh water melting and freezing; at least West Antarctica is warming fast so something fits the narrative down there, etc.
Happy New Year to all!
Ahhhh…. Man made arctic sea ice melting.
Retrospective man made arctic sea ice melting.
the difference between an average liar, and a lying scientist, is pay scale:-))
… gives a new and PROPER sense of the phrase “human-CAUSED” climate change.
Calculation is causation. 97% agree.
make it 100% 🙂
After applying my new novel homogenisation technique (which improves accuracy by 23.6%) to the average areas over time, I come up with 110% of non-scientist agree.
Don’t you mean “Mann-made Arctic sea-ice melting”?
😁
Before all the kneejerk wailing of foul play it should be noted that the new method seems more sensitive to change in both directions: as seen in Antarctic increase being greater and also a more pronounced recovery in the Arctic since 2007.
The main problem with this article is that it only considers the bloody “trend” or whole dataset.
If all you can do to data is fit one straight line to it , don’t bother criticising anyone else.
Hi Greg, while I know diddly about trend analysis could you please highlight the bit of the displayed image where the analysis shows more sea-ice at any time over the period shown using the new calculations?
Thanks in advance,
Andy
As the saying goes: figures lie and liars figure.
Tom … I was taught “figures don’t lie but liars figure”.
The rate of adjustments is accelerating
“Climate science” IS worse than we thought.
Excellent!
Caught red handed again. For another example, see my guest post here 2/17/17 concerning CONUS trends and NOAA’ s shift in early 2014 to NClimDiv. Typing NClimDiv into the search bar will take you there.
I’m confused. Were they trying to sneak one by, or were they being up front about their changes?
It doesn’t sound like they were trying to hide the changes … or did it accidentally slip out?
I believe that there are some working there that want to be on the right side of history so leave plenty of opportunity to caveat their findings and statements at some later date. Remember they argue that both the “old” and the “new” methods having supporting rationale. In other words like good little technocrats they are trying to cover their butts.
They can admit to it now…..but it changes the slope forever…specifically look at what they did to 2006 and 08
***I’m confused. Were they trying to sneak one by, or were they being up front about their changes?***
They will now be able to say that there was even less ice than they thought. And the kool-Aid drinkers will lap it up.
Their adjustments start going whackamole after 1999…got rid of the spike completely in 2008…..trippled the reduction in 2012 as compared to 2007…and over all made the rate of ice decline a lot faster after 1997
Notice the gap gets bigger..
average of daily values is smoke and mirrors….Both methods should give exactly the same results with an offset….in this case the new slope diverges down (less ice)
“Monthly averages of numerical ice concentration data can be calculated through two
different methods: 1) summing ice concentration data at each g
rid cell throughout a month, dividing by the number of days within a particular month to get average concentration for that grid cell, and then applying the 15 percent concentration
threshold to the gridded field of average ice concentrations before deriving monthly
area and extent, or 2) applying the 15 percent concentration threshold to the daily
gridded field of concentration data before deriving that day’s area and extent; and then
simply averaging those daily values over the course of the month. The former method is
the basis for the numerical algorithm in V2, while the latter describes V3.”
They were quite open about it. A number of interested parties queried why their monthly results didn’t agree with their daily results and they explained how they did it and then modified the method in response to the questioning in order to make it more intuitive to their audience. Basically any pixel that showed up over 15% for a single day was counted as being ice covered for the whole month, so if you had an ice flow which started in one pixel and drifted through say 5 pixels during that month then it would be quintuply counted which is why that method scored higher than just averaging the daily extent.
Thanks Phil….unfortunately that explanation makes sense….;)
Must have been really windy after 1996…and progressively got windier
Latitude January 5, 2018 at 5:15 pm
Thanks Phil….unfortunately that explanation makes sense….;)
Must have been really windy after 1996…and progressively got windier
Well the ice has got thinner and more mobile over that time and the pixel size has got smaller which could make the distinction between the methods more noticeable.
Interestingly NSIDC is showing the current Arctic extent at the lowest for the time of year.
Phil. Griff BenBen Nick Stokes
True. And, for 8 months of the year, the LESS Arctic sea ice is present, the GREATER the heat loss there is from the newly exposed Arctic Ocean into the Arctic air and then into space’s infinite darkness. It is only mid-April to mid-August (Day-of-Year 102 to 224) that the Arctic sun actually heats the exposed Arctic Ocean if any additional sea ice melts from its average value. The rest of the year? The other 243 days of the year?
Less Arctic sea ice = A colder planet.
If they are using the same method on both ends……fall refreezing….and spring melting….then they would show an equally huge increase in spring……they don’t
Phil,
Would that mean the wandering pixel ice floe which meanders through 5 locations on 5 days would then essentially be not counted as ice cover?
Bryan A January 6, 2018 at 9:12 am
Phil,
Would that mean the wandering pixel ice floe which meanders through 5 locations on 5 days would then essentially be not counted as ice cover?
No it means it would only be counted once instead of five times.
In the old method any pixel which contained more than 15% ice for a day during the month was counted as if it had been ice covered for the whole month. In times when the ice was particularly mobile this artificially increased the average ice extent for the month. Numerous people were puzzled why the monthly average extent sometimes exceeded the average of the daily ice extent and NSIDC responded by explaining how their calculation was done. They eventually changed to the more intuitive method of averaging the daily extent to avoid the confusion.
“Caught red handed again.”
Proved by quoting their own clear statement about the improved resolution.
How can this new method be applied retroactively so that we can see how the values compare over time or record keeping (using the method they’ve just moved away from)?
How have they shown it is “improved”? It is not even a real number, as the average of something over a period never actually existed. There was ice one minute and a different amount if ice the next minute.
You and they are claiming that a non-existent number is now more accurate than a previously non-existent number.
I presume this is the sort of garbage that gets put into the computer models which produce their own garbage which then updates the data garbage Which then ——-!. Indeed a vicious circle.
Sorry to intrude, but am I reading this correctly? Has Mann’s suit against Steyn, National Review and American Enterprise been decided/dismissed?
https://efile.dcappeals.gov/public/caseView.do?csIID=54941
Yikes!
I guess some one didn’t want Mann on the stand, as he would have to lie to support his thesis, and he is probably about as good a liar and he is a scientist. He would have exposed the whole fraud:-)))
I couldn’t understand it. It looked like this was Steyn’s suit against Mann.
The same site also deals with the Competitive Enterprise Institute suit against Mann, and is again completely non-understandable. Both of these have the notation Decided/Dismissed. but without an accompanying date, as far as I could see.
https://efile.dcappeals.gov/public/caseView.do?csIID=55550
What was Mann appealing? And on behalf of which party did the District of Columbia file an Amicus Curiae?
n/m Mann was the appellee.
It’s the Appeals Court. The case is listed as “MARK STEYN, ET AL V. MICHAEL E. MANN, PHD”. It’s them suing Mann that has been dismissed. And the events list says
““F/O DISMISSING THESE APPEALS AS MOOT and the DISMISSALS ARE W/O PREJUDICE…”
Doesn’t seem a big deal.
Nick,
First, IANAL, and others (ristvan??) I’m sure will comment, but my understanding is that a dismissal w/o predjudice is a big deal. My understanding is that dismissal WITH prejudice means the suit can’t be refiled. A dismissal WITHOUT prejudice means it can. Someone please help me?? 🙂
Also, that’s February of LAST year. I’m guessing if the case is still ongoing, that’s probably meaningless.
PR, you are correct. Dismissal with prejudice means cannot be refiled. Mere dismissal means it can be refiled, presumably with different claims and grounds from the original lawsuit dismissal.
What inspired me to look at the case status was this…
“Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann | Principia Scientific International”
https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/
If you search for Mann’s name in the database, four case #’s are listed, all annotated “decided/dismissed”
I’m very confused.
The actual decision was made over four years ago, and is here. It is of no significance. There was a fault in the appeal as filed, so they filed a new one. That rendered the old one moot, as the court then decided, and dismissed it. This latest seems to be just tidying up.
Absolute, mindless crap. The issue was SLAPP, a law prohibiting filing lawsuits against others (Mann frivolously filing against Stein) to suppress their 1st Amendment rights.
The ignorance, laziness, politicization and outright stupidity of a DC judge allowed this crap to continue into a consideration of SLAPP law itself. The uncontrolled, self-administration of the courts are to blame. Impeach them en mass.
This doesn’t seem to be anything new.
The case is still in the DC Appeals court. Competitive Enterprise Institute has asked for a re-hearing (by the full DC Appeals Court) to overturn the decision made (in December 2016) by a three judge panel of the Appeals Court. That decision upheld the lower court’s refusal to grant a dismissal under DC’s Anti-SLAPP Act (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). The Appeals judges did throw out part of the case against National Review and the claim for “Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress”.
Stein did not appeal the lower court decision, but his counter-suit can’t proceed until these appeals are concluded. Mann did not appeal the rejection of his Anti-SLAPP motion against Stein’s counter-suit.
Six years into the case, no evidence has been presented yet.
Sorry to go a little more off topic. Saw this at Small Dead Animals. Sally Yates gets a mention. The swamp is indeed deep and wide. A little long but a great presenter and a riveting, frightening snapshot of the DOJ
Howard Root; Cardiac Arrest
They don’t realize, every time they change like this….all they are saying is we didn’t know what we were doing before……………….when we swore up and down that we did
And they wonder why people are not paying attention any more
Latitude
One consequence is that the earlier claims for decline were excessive. The recent-years rate of decline is also steeper. The thing I noticed is that the stall in decline has been eliminated. Ice extent has been rising slightly for a few years. That is now disappeared.
Tony Heller has been pointing out the data fraud, and historical revisionism by these liars for Years now ! I don’t know why anyone even goes on about the substance of Co2 generated climate change – it’s well documented to be made up data from either defunct or nonexistent stations, Or, altered from raw (TOB excuse).
That is what the Real Story is.
Yes he has and, even better, he has been doing it with very concise posts and graphs which make his points immediately obvious to even the short-attention-span audience. Moreover, he is as brutally sarcastic and blunt about these things as they and their perpetrators fully deserve. Why respect professional liars?
Yet his blog site does not get listed here at WUWT. Now, WUWT?
sailboader – It is an old feud.
And it’s a pathetic one. They should be working together, but there are reasons why cooperation could be counterproductive to ones’ interests. Tony’s analysis is correct. And it’s backed up by Bob Tisdales’ analyses and The satellite temperature data.
There’s certainly been some human-caused climate change due to land use changes, and satellite data shows small, incremental temperature changes coincident with major El Ninos. This is what Tisdale’s ocean temp analyses have demonstrated. But nothing outside natural variability. And as an engineer with a career in process control, the variations are outside the accuracy of even NIST calibrated instruments.
As someone who has admired and supported Anthony since the days he was lifting this site off the ground, It’s both tragic and disappointing to me that Anthony has taken this position.
Concur that is a crying shame that apparently the hatchet cannot be buried. Other blog sites I go to use Tony’s work with attribution but the only time I see it here is when a poster brings it up. Tony has done a fantastic amount of great work and it is a shame “…the world’s most viewed climate website” does not present and expand upon it. I would love to see Anthony and Tony and some others sitting side by side at a table before a senate committee testifying one day. Preferably during the coldest day of a cold winter after a friendly senator turned down the thermostat and opened all the windows to the chamber the night before.
With sea ice floating around the streets of Boston will that be included in this years figures?
Mjw
That made me chuckle
The Mayor of Boston says this is due to global warming. He stated this on NBC news. He claims the oceans are rising and that caused the flooding. He was standing in freezing cold with snow and ice all around, saying global warming caused this, as did the tiny rise in sea level. The insanity is strong there.
Yea! They were so concerned about SLR in Boston that they put in a tunnel that was the highest budget public works project for a hi-way at the time. AKA: “The Big Dig”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig
Mjw,
This is actually a valid point. The sea-ice in Boston Harbor and up the coast in the Gulf of Maine is indeed reflecting sunlight, (as is the snow-cover clear down to Florida). Furthermore the sun at latitude 40 north is likely higher now than it is at the Pole at the solstice. Lastly, the ice has just started to melt at the solstice, at the Pole. The open water never starts to appear until August and September, when the sun is already lower, and by September the sun is so low that water, especially when calm, reflects sunlight better than dirty ice does. The entire Albedo arguement is humbug full of holes, once you start getting down to the brass tacks of details.
Boston Harbor and the Gulf of Maine and Massachusetts Bay also saw considerable sea-ice in 2014. Such sea-ice isn’t included in the above data. The entire time the ice was there its total area reflected X units of sunlight, and the sea didn’t absorb Y units of sunlight. With the sun as high as it is at 40 degrees north latitude, I’ll bet X is more than the entire amount of sunlight in the entire area north of 75 degrees north latitude, when the sun is on the verge of setting for six months in September.
NSIDC only uses the data it finds convenient. I lost faith in them years ago, sad to say.
Wow! How did they just manage to disappear 1.2 million km of ice? Don’t tell me, Peter Wadhams was doing a little prank with David Blaine and something went terribly wrong? Hope Santa is ok. Having said that, the disappeared ice is now probably occupying that mysterious island in Never Never Land called Ridicule where the alarmists have also hidden the remains of the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, 1940s blip, 1970s cooling, the ‘Pause’, all those healthy polar bears and the troposphere ‘hot spot’. Honestly, the addiction to phoney adjustments to official records, by a small cadre of national gatekeepers to maintain a failing narrative, is becoming more and more laughable as it is obvious. Smacks of desperation it would seem. Is it getting colder
outside by any chance?
Imagine what these data molesters would be able to get away with without the internet watching and saving their past versions. This whole thing is like the constant convenient revisions of the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s 1984… except for the memory of the net, while it lasts.
On the bright side, they are getting so desperate and obvious that only the gullible True Believers will swallow this. And with the current administration there may finally be consequences for these so called ‘scientists.’
Boston Mayor, Marty Walsh says flooding in Boston during blizzard was caused by AGW…
https://spectator.org/boston-mayor-global-warming-responsible-for-blizzards-destruction/
Of course, no one is taking notice of the “supermoon” that was high in the
sky as the tide came in.
I took notice.
My local weatherman helped me out and talked about the flooding in Boston, and how the flooding had gotten into areas it never got into normally, and I thought to myself that the Alarmists would probably try to tie this to CAGW, but then the weatherman explained that the cause of the higher flooding level was due to the “Supermoon” which is at just about its closest approach to Earth, which causes the tides to be higher than normal, and it was also in conjunction with a strong low-pressure system that was blowing hard and adding to the heighth of the tides.
A Perfect Storm. 🙂
“Boston Mayor, Marty Walsh says flooding in Boston during blizzard was caused by AGW…”
He is actually talking about CAGW, not AGW. Flooding is a Catastrophic event. So if he is claiming that human-caused Global Warming/Climate Change is causing the flooding, or adding to its devastation, then he is talking about CAGW.
Either way he’s a total twat scarcely adequate mentally to live independently.
the mayor is an idiot. it also doesn’t say much for the people that voted him in.
The first usefull sea ice data began in 1973 with the launch of the ESMR satellite. Why is six years of useful data never refrenced? I know the 1978 launch was a better instrument, however does his mean each time a better vehicle is available all previous data is to be ignored?
Was the ESMR extremely poor or did its data not fit the narritive?
1979 was the century maximum sea ice extent
https://realclimatescience.com/government-arctic-sea-ice-fraud/
And was up there with the EXTREMES of the LIA.
The decrease is actually a RECOVERY back towards more normal levels
But the extent is still up there in the top 10% or so of Holocene ice extents.
It’s not clear exactly what the linked graph represents. For example what is the data point which is encircled in red actually measuring. I doubt if it is an annual mean figure so it’s not consistent with the graph to the left. Also what does “sea ice amount” mean? Is that extent or area?
Looking at the running mean 1979 appears to be slightly above the long term mean.
It would help if Tony Heller provided a clearly labelled completed up to date reconstruction with links to data. However I suspect this will still sow a significant decline in sea ice (extent and area) over the past 20 years.
I am not a CAGW advocate but I have no time for misleading presentations on either side. Sadly, the worst examples of this tend to be from sceptics.
John Finn: The worst examples (of misleading presentations) comes from sceptics? Please provide your very worst example, and then stand by for a few counter examples to get the discussion going.
“I doubt if it is an annual mean figure so it’s not consistent with the graph to the left.”
The (TH-) claimed annual mean figures seem unbelievable. According to this plot from the WUWT sea ice page, annual averages have been gradually declining from about 12 to 10 million sq km. These look like minimum figures.
Paul Courtney: Tony Heller regularly posts misleading stuff .Perhaps you can think of a reason why he doesn’t show a complete up to date sea ice reconstruction.
However, probably the worst example is Don Easterbrook’s “study”. This provoked quite a robust discussion on WUWT a few years back. Even noted sceptics were highly critical of Easterbrook’s temperature reconstruction and projection.
icisil I cannot find the graph labeled Figure 5.2 in that document.
Can you post the URL of the source document and the page number?
This is a very interesting graph if it was actually was published by the Office of Energy Research and a copy is available online for independent evaluation. But but I’ve been burned before by trusting second hand sources.
sw, Heller provided the link below the image.
“The largest differences for the Arctic occur during the month of October due to the rapid ice growth rates typical at that time of year…”
Doesn’t that make October the worst month of the year to use for making comparisons? Why choose that month to highlight?
Oh yeah:
“October is also the month with the largest trend difference, increasing in magnitude from -7.4 percent per decade to -9.3 percent per decade. Changes in Arctic trends for other months are much smaller.”
Now I understand.
As always, they also are preparing for the future. I wondered how they were going to deal with what began to look like a turnaround “pause”, a bottoming out over the last several years- the big el nino gave them some breathing room.
They know that 1979 was at the end of a 40yr cooling period so that ice measurements from then were coming down from a 20th Century peak. Reports on Arctic ice in the 1930s chronicled the plight of seals, etc., US subs surfaced at the N Pole in 1950s before the refreeze had advanced:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/
During the Surface Temperature Pause, the Team came to understand the 60-70yr cycle so they have been worrying about a cooling and recovery of the ice in the coming years.
exactly.
Lying $cumb@g$.
They are positively certain that their past uncertainty was within an acceptable range of error for settled science and that this should NOT detract from future forecasts subject to the same past uncertainties and requisite adjustments. In other words, “Duh uh duh uh duh uh wha oh ah”
“First, the bet-winning difference is that sea ice decline goes from 7.4% per decade to 9.3% per decade.”
You have referred everywhere to “sea ice decline”. But all you show are the October monthly figures. Have you looked at other months? They themselves say tha October shows the largest difference.
It’s actually not surprising that the October numbers should be lower. It is a time of transition from near zero rate at ice minimum to almost the fastest rate of freezing in the year. The essential difference in the changed method is the use of daily rather than monthly averaging. More resolution. That gives greater weight to the early days in the month when the changes is slower.
the word you need is lowered….
Let’s see if they get the same rate with their new formula on the other end…..this should push April off the charts, more ice than ever
I just copied the NSIDC description straight off the NSIDC web site. They highlighted the extreme case of October, not me. If you want NSIDC to analyze other months, or calculate the trend differences for each of the other 11 months, take it up with them.
But notice that the graph is a graph of monthly data so every month is represented in the graph. It looks to me like the solid line is below the dotted line at every point, meaning every month is lower in every year after the revision.
And the 1.2 MM sq. km. is huge in Oct. 2012. To my eye, it looks like the absolute monthly value goes from 7.1 to 5.9 MM sq km. That would be a 17% decease just from this change of method. Missing 17% of the ice because you did the same steps in a different sequence, which is what this boils down to, makes you wonder how much analysis and evaluation they did before they picked that original method.
“it looks like the absolute monthly value goes from 7.1 to 5.9 MM sq km”
Yep it does.. 😉
“They highlighted the extreme case of October, not me.”
Yes. But they said at all stages that it was October data. You just said
“I bet that this change in computation method increased the rate of decline of arctic sea ice compared to the rate of decline calculated under the old method. “
No mention that it was October only.
“But notice that the graph is a graph of monthly data so every month is represented in the graph.”
The caption says
“This chart compares the monthly October Arctic sea ice extents”
It is October only.
“If you want NSIDC to analyze other months, or calculate the trend differences for each of the other 11 months, take it up with them.”
In fact, they have done it, and it is in the very informative report that you linked but apparently didn’t read. They give the following table. Changes in trend for months other than October are very small.
You do realize the same method that makes October (fall) go down as it’s re-freezing…..would make April/May/June (spring) go up as it’s melting….would have to if they a legit
It doesn’t
And that should even out in later months then, when the early days if melting show less melting than the later days. Oddly it doesn’t though.
The simple question is this – would they have changed the methodology if it had showed the opposite results?
Who knows.
“would they have changed the methodology if it had showed the opposite results?”
In fact the only monthly average that ever gets any publicity is the September average, because that is often used as the value of the minimum. And that did show the opposite result. It rose.
” transition from near zero rate at ice minimum to almost the fastest rate of freezing in the year. …That gives greater weight to the early days in the month when the changes is slower.”…
..and yet the table you posted gives no weight to the early days in the months, late spring early summer, when melting starts and the change is slower……the opposite….they are all essentially the same
nope…this does not pass the sniff test one bit…they are saying it only/mostly affects Oct when it freezes faster, in only one month…..yet does not affect spring summer when it can melt even faster….bullsh1t
They can get rid of an 8 year pause through adjustments, but cannot get rid of a 25 year pause. This just buys them some time.
“What me worry”?!
It will become warmer until suddenly it is colder…
How did you go bankrupt? Slowly, then suddenly…
Sea ice at both poles alternate going from around 3 E6 km^2 summer to 13, 15, 16 etc. E6 km^2 winter EVERY year – and have for eons!!!. Study the graphs on climate4you. And watch out for truncated scales that exaggerate trends!
Yes, my Chevrolet is still running for “eons”….
Sea ice at both poles alternate going from around 3 E6 km^2 summer to 13, 15, 16 etc. E6 km^2 winter EVERY year – and have for eons!!!
Eon = bazzilion years.
I think you are only telling one half of the story. Look at
https://nsidc.org/the-drift/data-update/noaansidc-releases-sea-ice-index-version-3-0/
for more details. It states that
“V3 monthly average areas are slightly greater than those from V2. Conversely, V3 monthly average extents are slightly less than V2.”
And V3 appears to be a more obvious way to calculate the average values. Again from the web page:
“The change is in response to questions about what seemed to be an inconsistency between daily and monthly values. When users summed daily values, and then divided by number of days in a month to get a monthly average value, that number was different, and sometimes quite different, from the monthly average numbers we presented.”
So now they have a simple clear way of calculating the monthly average – take the daily value, sum it and
divide by the number of days in a month. This does not seem to be an attempt to fiddle the data at all but rather a simple and clear way of calculating the average.
Trump needs to drain the CAGW Swamp at NASA and NOAA. Leaving these CAGW “Fifth Columnists” in place is damaging to the taxpayers and to science and to truth.
Won’t happen. Bureaucracy gets bigger.
The more I read about “science” and “scientific integrity” the more I’m prone to trust what the Bible says in Ecclesiastes 12:12 that reads, “Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh.”
Data changes.
Models change.
Revisions change.
Change, change, change. It’s endless, and forever always in the same direction to uphold some preconceived doom we’re soon to experience.
I, however, think tonight I shall enjoy a nice tipple of whiskey, or perhaps a martini, kick my feet up on the sofa, and relax to some light musical entertainment.
Yoda sez
On pins and needles the next “adjustment” I await
yada, yada, yada!
For me this is simple. If sea ice extent was so reduced then it should be possible to easily traverse the northern passage like was done in the 30s and 40s. Temperature records even after adjustment still show the 30s and 40s had higher temperatures in the Arctic than today. If sea ice extent is so bad we should be able to do that northern passage. Where is the evidence. Every time I hear of these ships with climate warriors going to the arctic or Antarctic they get stuck in the ice and have to be rescued.
Exactly. Look at the real world for evidence.
logiclogiclogic January 5, 2018 at 5:21 pm
For me this is simple. If sea ice extent was so reduced then it should be possible to easily traverse the northern passage like was done in the 30s and 40s. Temperature records even after adjustment still show the 30s and 40s had higher temperatures in the Arctic than today. If sea ice extent is so bad we should be able to do that northern passage. Where is the evidence.
September 06, 2017
“In waters normally covered by thick ice, ships are today sailing easily and without escorts. Ice data from Russia’s Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute show that the whole Northern Sea Route now is ice-free.” “According to the Northern Sea Route Administration, there were on 4th September 2017 a total of 94 ships in operation along the route.”
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/2017/09/northern-sea-route-completely-ice-free-and-shipping-thrives
As recently as April 2014, the Antarctic Sea Ice Area anomaly EXCEEDED its 1979-2010 average value by more than 2.16 Million km^2.
Yes, in April 2014, the “excess” sea ice around Antarctica was greater than the entire area of Greenland. (Kind of makes the loss of a Manhattan-sized iceberg rather trivial, doesn’t?) By the way, on average for the entire year, excess sea ice around Antarctic reflects 1.7 times the solar energy that sea ice in the Arctic Ocean does. Total sea ice area is an irrelevant, meaningless value.
Oh. Or perhaps, an uhh-oh alert.
Now, total Arctic Sea ice area has decreased from its first satellite-era values in 1978-1979 down to today’s 2017-2018 values for every day-of-year. No one should dispute that.
However, all four regional sea ice areas that matter most, the four Arctic Sea Ice Regions that DO reflect more energy per sq meter than their remaining far north Arctic sisters up above 70 degrees north latitude, ARE GAINING sea ice area the past 2-3 years.
NSIDC spreadsheets show that the 2016-2017 daily sea ice areas for the Bering Sea (60 north), Hudson Bay (60 north), the Sea of Okhotsk (60 north), and the St Lawrence Gulf (58 north latitude) ALL INCREASED through the summer (and fall, winter, and spring) than the same summer days in their long-term 2006-2015 records. (2016-2017 daily regional sea ice areas remain less than their 1979-2017 averages though.) The Hudson Bay, Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk did not even melt out all of their sea ice, for the first time ever in the satellite era. The St St Lawrence Guld region did melt out all of its sea ice, but days later than ever recorded before. It refroze faster than previous years.)
Certainly, three years of date do not make a climate trend. However, ANY increased sea ice in the spring, fall, and summer at latitude 60 north is much more significant than ANY DECREASE in the average sea ice further north between 72 north and 78 north.
Increased sea ice at 60 north in June, July, August and September does matter, and arctic sea ice in those areas DOES reflect more sunlight many more days of the year that DOES reduce average temperatures in the ocean water below the sea ice. To repeat, reduced sea ice at 74, 76, or 78 north latitude in June, July, August, and September only increases ocean temperatures slightly, but that reflected sunlight further south matters much more.
The Arctic water temperatures today do not care how much sea ice was present in 1979. long term average total sea ice values, like total sea ice values for the earth, are meaningless. That energy has been long since radiated away to space.
But, if “climate science” is correct, then Arctic regional temperatures today are affected by the presence, or absence, of regional arctic sea ice the past two summers. And the regional Arctic ocean sea ice at 60 north is increasing in all areas the past few years.
Here’s a January 1, 2018 update Phil:
Northern Sea Route Blocked With Thick Ice
DMI has records for 15 years, going back to 2004. The only other year out of the last fifteen which had ice this thick blocking the Northern Passage was 2010. But 2010 was less problematic because the thick ice was at lower latitude where the ice normally melts during the summer. The animation below shows all 15 years.
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/01/northern-sea-route-blocked-with-thick-ice/
Great graphics included.
“Temperature records even after adjustment still show the 30s and 40s had higher temperatures in the Arctic than today.”
No.
http://www.wwfblogs.org/climate/sites/default/files/north-latitudes-surface-temp-trend-annual-thru2011-lo-res-415px(1).jpg
“The surface temperature anomaly for the region extending from 64oN to 90oN, from 1880 through 2011, in degrees Centigrade above or below the temperature during the 1951-1980 base period. The figures shows that temperatures have risen substantially since 1880 and that the rate of increase has been especially rapid since the late 1970s. Source: WWF, using data from NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Combined Land-Surface Air and Sea-Surface Water Temperature Anomalies, Zonal annual means.”
GISS.
ROFL.
“even after adjustment”
ROLF
Nice graph of “Annual” “Arctic” temperature anomalies from 1951 to 2011.
Misleading graph (deliberately misleading, I would claim) but misleading nonetheless.
First. Their 64 north to 90 north “latitude band” for the graph excludes the four sea ice regioins south of 64 north. (Sea of Okhotsk, Bering Sea, Hudson Bay, and Gulf of St Lawrence.) Granted, these are small regions, and up until the past two years, there has been no sea ice in those four regions all year, but the fact remain, this discussion is about sea ice and open ocean exposure, not about land temperatures.
Second. There is There is essentially no sea ice at all between 60 north and 70 north (the north coast of Alaska, Canada, and the northern arc of Europe between Norway and Siberia), and very little open ocean compared to the hundreds of million sq kilometers of land area. This region of land IS darker because of the increased tree, brush, grass and tundra growing due the recent increase in CO2 levels, but that increase is NOT due to any imaged decrease in sea ice area at any time of year. More trees, leaves, limbs, brush, and low vegatation = darker earth albedo = warmer temperatures over land, no change in temperatures over water and ocean.
Since there is no sea ice between 60 north and 70 north latitude, the last 40 year’s reduction in sea ice area increases heat loss from the Arctic ocean to the air above the Arctic 3/4 of the year, and (slightly) increases ocean heat gain 1/4 of the year. This heat energy gain by the Arctic air is then quickly lost to the infinite cold of deep space vacuum above.
Can the increased heat lost from the greater open Arctic Ocean areas be transferred (measurably or significantly) to the land areas south of 70 north latitude? Perhaps. But demonstrate that by showing the “increase” in ground temperatures as a severe cold front moves across North America from the north west to the southeast every ten days. You would be claiming that “A small decrease in Arctic sea ice area between 70-80 north greatly increases Arctic air temperatures between 70 north and 80 north latitudes, which then flows south to 64 north – 70 north latitudes as warmer air than “normal”, and these warmer air mass over land warms the land between 64 north and 70 north latitudes.”
But the actual heat transfer math doesn’t work out the way the simplified logic sounds during a “hand-waving” lecture. Warm water at 2-4 degrees C DOES loses heat energy to the cold Arctic air above. Your pretty graph shows annual temperatures as if every day’s temperatures has increased all year. Yes, if every day over the year, the daily average temperature were higher than “normal”, then, on average over the year, that slightly warmer air flowing out from the newly-exposed Arctic ocean would (even less slightly) warm the land south of the Arctic ocean a little bit.
Remember that the heat transfer capacity of water is some 1000 that of air, the heat transfer capacity of solid ground (earth, rock, plant-covered tundra) varies much more than open ocean is less but is 200 – 500 times that of flowing air. Only some 6 inch to 12 inches of upper “earth” cycles as air temperature changes with the weather annually, and much less than that each day as a cold front goes over.
Third. The very pretty graph imagines it shows an annual increase for the “Arctic region”, but what it really shows is a 4-5 degree but steady greater fall, winter, and spring temperatures “above average” between 70 north latitude and 80 north latitude (where the vast majority of Arctic sea ice actually is), and ZERO increase between 1960 and 2018 in the summer months. “Summer” Arctic air temperatures where the sea ice actually is present have not changed.
Only fall, winter, and spring temperatures (when the sun deposits no solar energy on the additional exposed arctic ocean due to sea ice loss) have increased. Your graph, your “arctic amplification” theory of sea ice loss and increased ocean absorption of solar energy cannot explain that difference.
Fourth. As Arctic sea ice expands during winter (Oct-Nov-Dec-Feb), there is no solar energy falling on any sea ice anywhere. There is only increased heat LOSSES from the excess ocean area exposed by a loss of Arctic sea ice to the Arctic air between 70 north latitude and 90 north, and over the far smaller Arctic regions at 60 north latitude. You must explain how 7% less sea ice between 70 north latitude and 90 north causes significantly colder air over land masses between 30 north and 50 north latitudes.
At Arctic sea ice maximum in March, there is almost zero difference in heat energy absorbed by the snow-covered sea ice and any increased open ocean exposed by the loss of sea ice at 71-72 north latitude. (There is a difference further south over the regional sea ice exposed at 60 north latitudes.)
At Arctic sea ice minimum in Sept, there is almost zero difference in heat energy absorbed by the snow-covered sea ice and any increased open ocean exposed by the loss of sea ice at 78-80 north latitude. (There is less than 1% of any regional sea ice exposed at 60 north latitudes at this time of year. The only sea ice remaining at Arctic sea ice minimum is between 78 north latitude and the pole.)
The only time a loss of Arctic sea ice can “heat the Arctic Ocean” is those few weeks between mid-April and mid-August. And it those weeks that Arctic air is not warming!
“If sea ice extent is so bad we should be able to do that northern passage. Where is the evidence. Every time I hear of these ships with climate warriors going to the arctic or Antarctic they get stuck in the ice and have to be rescued.”
http://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/1936_08-400.jpg
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/1999/08/N_daily_extent_hires-1-860×1024.png
“If sea ice extent is so bad we should be able to do that northern passage. Where is the evidence. Every time I hear of these ships with climate warriors going to the arctic or Antarctic they get stuck in the ice and have to be rescued.”
http://hidethedecline.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/fig9.gif
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/1999/08/N_daily_extent_hires-1-860×1024.png
Pity those old Danish maps don’t include September, when sea-ice is lowest. Also, the 2017 Russian maps differ from the NSIDC map you display. Lastly, last year Russian ships got trapped in ice and couldn’t escape until last August.
This is not to say sea-ice isn’t at a low point. However it is difficult to compare current situations with 1935, with a high degree of certainty. But we can be certain that some Alarmist graphs, which show 1935 as like 1979, are bunkum.
An adjustment that increases the first derivative (the rate of change), typically decreases the second derivative (the acceleration) or at least sets things up so it will decrease in the future.
Thus, in the long run, this adjustment will hurt the case for alarm. Let’s see how this plays out.
The NSIDC has generally been legit and I suspect that hasn’t changed.
You forgot the sarcasm tags on that last sentence.
The pause is showing now that it never was a pause but an overturning.
We’ll now see the full extent of data manipulation that the Climagesterium are willing to carry out to keep the story alive. O babe – then it falls apart.
When it comes to a “settled science,” shouldn’t there be a limit to how many times they can change their methods?
Above is a graph showing the annual average extents since 2007, comparing MASIE and SII (v3.0). Obviously, the trend in MASIE could not be flatter, while SII shows a decline. The first five years the two indices were nearly the same, and since then SII shows less ice, about 260k km2 each year. Note also how small is the variance year over year: Standard deviation is +/- 260k km2, or about 2.5% of the average annual extent. This holds for both indices. Note also a pattern of three higher years followed by two lower years.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/01/03/arctic-ice-mixed-signals/
I’m a physical scientist. Any new problem I generally first try to get some grab handles on in terms of theory, magnitude, confounding factors and those kind of things. With the Arctic ice decline I generally went to the satellite imagery to see for myself the ‘dramatic decline’ under discussion. My favoured site was ‘The Cryosphere Today’ which showed satellite imagery of both poles and you could side-by-side compare any date with any other date on the same screen. Now of course this is a very low resolution way to go but nevertheless for the life of me I could never detect anything unusual about the Arctic from any of those images. A small bit of variance but effectively the same ice cap since satellite records began.
That site appears to be down now and I mentioned it in the tips section but my question again is what is going on? If I cannot even visually tell the difference between one year or decade and the next then why am I supposed to be panicking? People can argue all day long about contestable ice cover stats and the finer points of multi-year ice and whatever else but if I cannot visually confirm significant long-term change then I’m not interested.
An instrument on board a satellite went kaput, and Cryosphere Today lacked the will to find substitutes since Arctic sea ice was no longer decreasing and alarmism could not be promoted.
A few years more of the climate going the opposite way would see the death of many of those scaremongering climate sites.
Good to know and thanks for that.
“since Arctic sea ice was no longer decreasing and alarmism could not be promoted.”
Except it is in the sense of not increasing as much in winter……
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2017/04/monthly_ice_03_NH_v2.1.png
Why should it increase?
Funny thing is it is not decreasing either for over 10 years
So much for climate scientists predictions. Not reliable at all.
“Why should it increase?”
In winter?
Do you really not know?
And as far as IPCC projections go ….
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qfYMnjSr7S8/UFBpCS6QbuI/AAAAAAAAGw8/fOcsDzzF8d8/s1600/image_large.png
It really is bizarre to hang into a 10year trend following an outlier melt as being anything other than NV. After a run of cool summers and mild winters.
But then again you held onto the “pause” for dear life too.
And that’s back up with the long-term trend.
Ahh, yes. That natural variability that is completely ignored by IPCC when doing its alarming predictions and then used as an excuse when they fail.
If you knew anything about natural variability you would know about the ~60 year oscillation that indicates that the 10-year trend is likely to continue. Arctic sea ice is not going to disappear anytime.
And regarding the pause being back to the long term trend, clearly not the trend predicted by IPCC and models.
Complete failure of IPCC consensus climate science.
The ice chart is just another example of how poorly IPCC climate models estimate any climatic parameter, Toneb.
Do you believe those models are sufficient to fundamentally alter our society, economy and energy systems? If not, STFU.
The chart at icisil 4:00pm, called Figure 5.2, appears to have data back to 1925, but claims to be from 1920 to 1975.
The chart at the top of this post, called Figure 6, starts in 1979.
There are 4 missing years.
Researchers seem to have great difficulty getting a measurement of this thing called sea ice. Unsettled science, I guess.
So, they keep trying. That’s good. Right?
I have noticed there is still ice there every September, even though I’ve been told not to expect any. Repeatedly.
I have noticed adventurers going to the North Pole or somewhere. They row, walk, sled, sail, … whatever. I can’t keep up. What happened with Alex Bellini’s ride on an iceberg? None of this is helpful.
After a few hundred years of studying the Arctic Ocean ice, it is still unknown what has been, is, or will be.
Well, I think it is good that they keep trying.
97% of all adjustments…
Mark Serreze presumes humanity is as corrupt, evil and perverted as He.
Bad presumption old boy.
NSIDC can and should be disestablished this fiscal year.
Ha ha
Averages—gotta love ’em. Just toss the data about until you get the desired result and then claim your new “method” is better, because it proves more warming. Circular reasoning, anyone?
I wonder if we average the misstatements found in the news by using the daily average versus the monthly average, will we get more misstatements? Be interesting to see which results gives the desired answer, wouldn’t it?
Averages—gotta love ’em. Just rearrange and reaverage until you get the desired result. Circular reasoning, anyone?
Drat, cyberspace strikes again! Or is it my very slow internet connection? I’ll see if I can get a grant to study that.
Regardless of the merits of the change in method, the fact is that if it didn’t result in lower levels of ice and an accelerated decline then the change wouldn’t have been made. They know it, and we know it, just like with the one-way temperature adjustments. These “scientists” can’t even pretend to be unbiased observers.
The only thing settled about climate “science” is that the warmist climate “scientists” will keep on adjusting data to get the “correct” result – i.e it’s always shown to be worse than previously thought.
Piano wire and lamp posts (suitably adjusted) spring to mind.
So, no warming of the Arctic since 2007. I guess that’s the message they’re hiding?
“So, no warming of the Arctic since 2007. I guess that’s the message they’re hiding?”
Toneb, you still don’t get it do you?
The satellite data is measuring the energy leaving the planet, not on the planet and it is not coming back any time soon.
“The satellite data is measuring the energy leaving the planet, not on the planet and it is not coming back any time soon.”
It is – but it’s leaving slower now because of the enhanced GHE caused by anthro CO2 slowing it.
Hence we have had the warmest non-El Nino year on the instrumental record.
Oh, and I know you will “not get it” because your ideological bias does not permit you to even be bothered to learn the basic physics, amply highlighted by that backwards statement.
It’s already here my friend as it’s an insulation effect.
Toneb, I am afraid you have it back to front, the more CO2 the more cooling in the upper Atmosphere.
So according to NASA more CO2 leads to faster cooling which will offsett any warming due to GHGs slowing the LWIR moving through the Atmosphere.
I swa your list of nonsense science on the previous thread.
Wouldl you like to discuss the sirnce of why CO2 cannot warm the Surface?
A C Osborn January 6, 2018 at 8:03 am
Hmm. This could be a bit misleading. If there were no CO2 in the upper atmosphere then LW energy leaving earth’s climate system would be radiated to space from lower altitudes (or the surface) . The earth would therefore cool quicker and more efficiently because energy emission is proportional to the 4th power of temperature. (higher is colder).
This is a key point in AGW theory. As more CO2 accumulates in the upper atmosphere the average height at which energy is emitted increases which means that the rate of emission FALLS. The creates an imbalance between the incoming solar energy and the LW outgoing energy. To restore equilibrium the earths surface (and lower atmosphere) must warm.
John Rigg, as I say below to Toneb, take it up with the NASA Scientists that reported it.
We are talking about the thermosphere here.
“John Rigg, as I say below to Toneb, take it up with the NASA Scientists that reported it.
We are talking about the thermosphere here.”
John Finn you mean?
We don’t need to “take it up” as it is a consequence of the GHE in the lower atmosphere.
And yes the Thermosphere too, though is much more affected by energetic particle heating and varies with the solar cycle.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/coolingthermosphere.html
“A fundamental prediction of climate change theory is that upper atmosphere will cool in response to greenhouse gases in the troposphere,” says Mlynczak. “Scientists need to validate that theory. This climate record of the upper atmosphere is our first chance to have the other side of the equation.””
https://www.space.com/7685-earth-upper-atmosphere-cooling-dramatically.html
“The data, from NASA’s TIMED mission, show that Earth’s thermosphere (the layer above 62 miles or 100 km above the Earth’s surface) “responds quite dramatically to the effects of the 11-year solar cycle,” Stan Solomon of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., said here this week at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union.”
It is actually much worse. Lots of warming in the Arctic since 2007 but the ice refuses to melt. It means they don’t understand sea ice. No wonder they are so pissed off and devising ways of hiding their ignorance.
“Lots of warming in the Arctic since 2007 but the ice refuses to melt. ”
Actually it’s “refusing” to freeze.
There has been a run of cool summers ….
But at the same time a run of mild winters.
Hence ….
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2017/04/monthly_ice_03_NH_v2.1.png
Think Toneb. What you call mild is still a lot of degrees below freezing. However melting takes place in spring and summer and very sensitive to a few degrees.
“Toneb, I am afraid you have it back to front, the more CO2 the more cooling in the upper Atmosphere.”
Oh dear, you really are seriously muddled.
Right you have a thin shirt on.
You measure the temperature at some small distance outside that shirt.
You put on a woolly jumper.
You measure the temperature at the same place again.
Question: which temp reading will be highest?
Question: will you be warmer in just the shirt of in the shirt + jumper?
Answers on postcard my friend
IOW: it is a consequence of the heat retentive insulating effect of GHG’s that it both retains extra heat within the climate system AND (as a consequence of) so there is a cooling affect above it.
All basis science my friend.
That you are either disinterested in learn.
Or conversely are incapable, for whatever reason.
“I swa your list of nonsense science on the previous thread.
Wouldl you like to discuss the sirnce of why CO2 cannot warm the Surface?”
No because it would be Sky-dragon slaying bollocks.
The science of the GHE is empirical this last ~150 years, and no one has found it wanting.
It is not up for discussion
So write the Nobel winning paper.
I assure if there was one TO write someone would have got their well deserved Nobel by now.
Toneb, take it up with the NASA Scientists that presented the data at the 2013 AGU meeting.
They are the ones saying it cools the upper Atmosphere quicker.
As to no discussion, I see you like to have your say and then slam the door on any response.
What are you afraid of?
My answers will have nothing to do with the Sky dragons, it is just pure science.
But of course if you mean that Back LWIR from CO2 in the upper atmosphere is actually warming the surface directly then I am afraid you really do have a problem.
Because you obviously believe that cold objects can make hot objects hotter by direct Radiation, regardless of the conditions and distances involved.
But I just want to put it on record that you are not prepared to discuss your settled science.
“They are the ones saying it cools the upper Atmosphere quicker.”
Err that’s what I said and agreed with. The upper atmosphere being the Stratosphere.
It a key feature of the enhanced GHE.
“What are you afraid of?”
ANsolutely nothing as the physics say aeaxcty what I would.
Go and read them.
” it is just pure science.”
Te you me and the (real empiricl) physics have no argument.
“Because you obviously believe that cold objects can make hot objects hotter by direct Radiation, regardless of the conditions and distances involved.”
I not only believe it, but I directly (instrumentally) observed it countless times as a UKMO forecaster.
But a correction…..
Cold objects don’t make objects hotter.
What they do is slow down the hotter objects’ cooling.
You know – just like that jumper you wear in winter.
It does it via insolation from conduction/convection.
CO2 does it by absorbtion of upwelling LWIR and re-emission in all directions, some of which gets back to the ground …. whereuppon that process may get repeated (for a specific photon).
The 2 LoT talks of a NET transfer NOT ALL transfer of energy.
So the hotter object will always stay hotter BUT also do so for longer than otherwise.
“But I just want to put it on record that you are not prepared to discuss your settled science.”
Correct – because you have just spoken the words of a Sky-dragon slayer – despite saying you are not one.
Yep, Toneb, its settled. Except modeling vs actual atmospheric water vapor. Except cloud forcings. Except …
Yep, lets just fundamentally alter our society, economy and energy systems based on climate models. All of the speculation about increasing temperatures affecting specific parts of our biosphere is based on those admittedly inaccurate climate models. See IPCC AR5 for the ultimate indictment of their models; they had to arbitrarily cool the medium term forecasts.
So despite what you said earlier, you are actually discussing the Science.
So H2O is a GHG and you have stated the IPCC position that it is a positive feedback mechanism.
When in actual fact the more H2O the more cloud, the more cloud the less Solar radiation arrives at the surface and especially the Sea surface.
So as a positive feedback how do you square that with this chart put up by Leif amongst others.
Note how much better the correlation is compared to CO2.
By the way a slight correction is required in your answer “It does it via insolation from conduction/convection.”
Should actually be ” It does it via insulation from conduction/convection.”
Why do you assume that someone who disagrees with your position has NOT alreay read the Science?
ToneDeaf,
Guy Callendar, one of the so-called grandfathers of the GHE, published a study claiming rising CO2 concentrations would produce warming. At the end of his 1938 study, “The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and It’s Influence on Temperature”, Callendar stated:
“The course of world temperature during the next twenty years should afford valuable evidence as to the accuracy of the calculated effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide”
The course of world temperatures from 1939 to 1959 are as follows:
https://tinyurl.com/y94gms5j
Oops. Poor Guy.
Ok, let’s try 30 years. Give the “Guy” a break:
https://tinyurl.com/y7urlzp7
Bummer. 40 years even produces the same result.
There is no greenhouse “law”. It’s an alleged “effect” that has been postulated, but never proven. It’s only purpose is an attempt to explain bad physics. The ball is in your court, :
Its the aerosols, doan’cha know, SGW?
SGW, now you have gone and done it.
I wanted to break it down a little at a time and you go and smash it.
He will probably clam up now.
You sir are a spoil sport.
I wanted to discuss how CO2 works in the Atmosphere, now he won’t play ball
A C,
No. There are no aerosol measurements to support your suggestion.
Sorry A C,
The above should have been addressed to Dave.
“When in actual fact the more H2O the more cloud, the more cloud the less Solar radiation arrives at the surface and especially the Sea surface.
So as a positive feedback how do you square that with this chart put up by Leif amongst others.”
That graph is exactly hat I would expect to see.
A correlation with the prolonged -ve PDO/ENSO regime that gave rise to the putative “pause”. Cooler equatorial Pacific waters leaded to weakened convection and less cloud.
Nothing whatever to do with CO2.
Rather random NV which came to an end beyond that graphs timeframe.
“Why do you assume that someone who disagrees with your position has NOT alreay read the Science?”
Two reasons.
1. you wont find much science here, just rather a trashing of it.
2. If you had you would not be so wrong and muddled about it.
“The course of world temperatures from 1939 to 1959 are as follows:”
You really have to get past your presupposition that there is nothing other than CO2 that affects climate.
In fact prior to the ’70’s it was not a primary driver of GMT, as -ve feedvack was dominant post WW2.
http://globalwarming-facts.info/wp-content/uploads/Climate_Change_Attribution.png
Then you have to look at now the pacific was behaving (and the GMT responding)…..
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Fm9nLWrCTmE/Vc317DprmJI/AAAAAAAAKU8/MWq4JGH84H4/s1600/Global%2Bsurface%2Btemperature%2BENSO%2Band%2BPDO.png
Global dimming due to atmospheric aerosols post WW2….
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL028031/abstract
“To disentangle surface solar and greenhouse influences on global warming, trends in diurnal temperature range are analyzed. They suggest that solar dimming was effective in masking greenhouse warming, but only up to the 1980s, when dimming gradually transformed into brightening. Since then, the uncovered greenhouse effect has revealed its full dimension, as manifested in a rapid temperature rise (+0.38°C/decade over land since mid-1980s). Recent solar brightening cannot supersede the greenhouse effect as main cause of global warming, since land temperatures increased by 0.8°C from 1960 to 2000, even though solar brightening did not fully outweigh solar dimming within this period.”
“Oops. Poor Guy.”
No, oops poor you – for your simplistic, reductionist, thinking my friend.
“I wanted to discuss how CO2 works in the Atmosphere, now he won’t play ball”
You’ll find it in the atmospheric science/physics book my friend.
I’m not your teacher.
But you could read this.
Tho I dont hold my breath.
https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/atmospheric-radiation-and-the-greenhouse-effect/
Poor Tonedeaf. Lots of charts and graphs for nothing. Real observations gave Callendar the smackdown.
There were NO aerosol measurements back then. It’s more pseudo science BS trying to explain away a bad hypothesis.
The various climate modelers used varying amounts of historical aerosols; “really hot” ones used more. In scrambling to support the models for IPCC AR6, there will be some big losers.
Transparent model tuning may be a thing of the past. It depends on the boldness of the UN politicians, SGW.
Oops. Opaque, not transparent.
LMAO. Tonedeaf refers to the Science of Dumb website run by a physics idiot.
Did they tell us they were adjusting? yes
did they make the basis of adjustment and reasons for it clear? yes
Do they put a warning on the charts about the adjustment? yes
are they hiding anything? no
Is arctic sea ice declining? yes
Read their latest bulletin
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
… and pay particular attention to the section at the bottom on historical ice extent, which shows it is lower now than it has been since the start of their period of comparison in 1850.
So it’s lower now than when we started coming out of the LIA…got it.
Not since 2007. That’s 10 years. Arctic ice pause that again was not predicted, and contrary to expectations.
Being a climate scientists must be one of the professions most filled with surprises.
Regarding Arctic sea ice extent, what matters is maximum value, minimum value, and the dates for maximum and minimum values. All the rest is just trivia.
I saw about these changes to monthly values when they did them some months ago. I didn’t think they mattered at all, and I don’t think it now. Nobody cares about the monthly graphs.
However there is a clear trend to discontinue or change climatic graphic displays when they stop supporting climatic alarmism. For a time ice age graphs were all over the place promoting that old ice was disappearing. Then in 2015 they changed the display because it was too easy to see that old ice was recovering. Then finally they stopped updating the graph altogether.
This was the old display:
Last year it was published was 2014. I managed to get hold of this 2015 graph that was never made public.
It was substituted by this display were everything appears to go to worst:
But even this one appears to have been discontinued. I haven’t seen one since 2016. And 2017 was the first year the NSIDC did not have a melt season review in October. They just published a year review were they don’t show any yearly comparison in extent. It is either bad news or no news. Under no circumstances good news can be allowed.
The switch from % to ice extent gives a more scary picture. Both are needed to get an understanding imo.
Yes, but the graph is also incorrect to give an even more scary and false impression. Unless they have carefully chosen the week for the display (week 11 is in March), it turns out that March ice extent has not gone significantly below that of 2006.
Compare that picture with this one from DMI:
http://osisaf.met.no/quicklooks/sie_graphs/nh/en/osisaf_nh_iceextent_monthly-03.png
The fact is the percentage of old ice is going up, not down, and the extent of ice is not decreasing. The figure has been carefully drafted to hide those facts and keep the Arctic melting image alive.
Here’s the graph published in October:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2017/10/
Thank you.
+10… nice graphs, says it all.
Even more reason to ask: So why doesn’t the polar bear population shrink accordingly??
Excellent point.
Not enough hunting permits?
Out of interest, how much of the grid electricity has been powered by renewables since the temps nose dived?
I don’t know what the big deal is disappearing a million or so square kilometers of ice from the past.
Some of the world’s best minds (*cough*) have predicted that all the ice is already gone!
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/ice-free-arctic-forecasts/
Oh no, that’s conspiracy ideation! Saying that there is no Arctic ice, when there is literally millions of square miles of it. Now, I just wonder who coined that term in Klimate circles? I think it was this one colleague of Harvey in Harvey et al?
We are left expecting a new paper, Harvey et Al, which in no uncertain terms tells anybody who sees polar bears, is believing in UFOs as well.
Fiddling with a metric that means nothing to climate over the time period they are adjusting so as to present the situation as they desire. No amount of fiddling with the math is going to save this scam. I have confidence that mother nature will to see to that. So now ignore the NSIDC extent presentations as corrupted and go with MASIE or perhaps, despite their own adjustment a couple years ago, DMI. Which brings up the question. Will not the new formula result in NSIDC extent diverging over time to become an outlier compared to the others?
Perhaps someone can explain this discrepancy:
This U.S. Navy site gives the arctic ice depth as mostly 1.5 meters and less with just a small sliver at 3 meters:
But this site by the Danish Meteorological Institute shows large swaths of 3 meter thick ice:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/thk.uk.php
And this site as well using data from the European Cryosat-2 satellite also shows large areas with 3 meter thick Arctic ice:
http://www.cpom.ucl.ac.uk/csopr/seaice.html
So what is the source of the discrepancy? The idea that Arctic ice is diminishing to dangerous levels is probably coming from the data on the U.S. Nay site.
So which is right?
Bob Clark
Robert Clark January 6, 2018 at 7:34 am
Perhaps someone can explain this discrepancy:
This U.S. Navy site gives the arctic ice depth as mostly 1.5 meters and less with just a small sliver at 3 meters:
https://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhycomcice1-12/arctic.html
But this site by the Danish Meteorological Institute shows large swaths of 3 meter thick ice:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/thk.uk.php
And this site as well using data from the European Cryosat-2 satellite also shows large areas with 3 meter thick Arctic ice:
http://www.cpom.ucl.ac.uk/csopr/seaice.html
So what is the source of the discrepancy? The idea that Arctic ice is diminishing to dangerous levels is probably coming from the data on the U.S. Nay site.
The Hycom (USNavy) and DMI are both models as I understand it, and DMI is based on the Hycom data.
Cryosat-2 is a measurement, both it and the Russian data contradict the DMI results regarding the Northern route ice.
RAH,
My understanding is that the big adjustment to “thickness” in some maps, including the NRL maps, has to do with an adjustment made to account for the amount of salt in the snow atop the ice.
In the depth of winter salt loses its power to melt snow, and is exuded at the top of the ice in delicate formations called “snow flowers,” which are part water and part salt. These delicate shapes get pulverized when winds increase, and move across the ice like drifted snow. The component of this drifting stuff that is water can sublimate in the very dry air, but the salt cannot. In certain situations you can have small drifts of powdered salt drifting atop the ice, (I saw this myself on a frozen bay in Maine in 1979. Tasted the drifting powder with my own fingertip and tongue. It was salt all right.)
Due to all the salt blowing around early in the winter, when leads are more common and more fresh ice is forming, the lower layers of snow atop the sea-ice are salty. The later snowfalls are more or less pure water from the sky.
What someone decided was that the sensors way up in satellites were confused, and seeing the boundary between the non-salty snow and the salty snow as the top of the ice, when the top of the ice was beneath the salty snow. Therefore they subtracted a couple feet from the sea-ice thickness.
The problem I have with this is that the Pole is a desert, especially during the winter, and snowfall is seldom more than an inch or two. They don’t have snows measured in feet. The fellows who ski up their, and drill holes in the ice, seldom send back pictures of deep drifts. Usually the snow on top of the ice seems to be around a foot thick at most, and sometimes mere inches. Therefore I have a problem with an “adjustment” that dismisses feet of ice as “salty snow”.
Thanks for the explanation Caleb.
I have to wonder about the US Navy’s published sea ice thickness. Accurate information of this nature would be very important to officers involved in planning and operations in the Arctic. But I know for a fact that the US military has in the past willfully distorted important information when ordered by the NCA (National Command Authority) to do so for political reasons.
Back during the Clinton era during the fighting in the Balkans they did it. The CIA using satellite and USAF aerial recon was issuing BDA (Bomb Damage Assessment) reports. Though not still in SF I knew and was still in contact with a number of guys on teams on the ground doing recon at the time. Their missions were BDA. What the CIA was claiming in their BDAs were so wildly optimistic that they had no basis in realty based on the on ground recon BDAs conducted by the special operators. Bill Cohen was Clintons Sec. Def at the time. He ordered the on ground BDA be ignored and the highly inaccurate CIA BDA be reported and used for the AARs (After Action Reports) so as to put the best political face on the USAF bombing operations.
And people wonder why I laugh at fools that think that government climate data must be honest and factual representations of reality. If politicians have no qualms about publishing and hyping inaccurate or false information that could lead to future military failures and increased casualties for political reasons, they why would anyone expect them to be honest about a political issue such as “climate change”?
The DMI results and the Cryosat-2 results agree with each other and disagree with the U.S. Navy results in that they both show abundant 3 meter ice, while the U.S. Navy site shows almost all 1.5 meter and lesser ice, with just a sliver of 3 meter thick ice. Compare these two images from DMI and Cryosat-2 to the image I posted above from the U.S. Navy site:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/anim/plots_uk/CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20180106.png
http://www.cpom.ucl.ac.uk/csopr/sidata/thk_28.png
Knowing thickness of the arctic ice is clearly important both for military vessels and commercial shipping so it is important for very practical reasons to know which is right.
Is there a way of doing “ground-truthing” of the models and satellite data to determine their accuracy? Could you for example carry a helicopter by transport ship to the vicinity of deep ice, to return to the ship after doing the ice surveys?
Or perhaps you could have nuclear powered submarine travel under the ice and send up bores through the ice to determine the thickness.
Bob Clark
Caleb January 6, 2018 at 8:17 pm
RAH,
My understanding is that the big adjustment to “thickness” in some maps, including the NRL maps, has to do with an adjustment made to account for the amount of salt in the snow atop the ice.
You will no doubt be pleased to learn that you are mistaken. A research paper has been published showing that there could be such an error in the measurement of FYI, no such adjustments are being made however.
What someone decided was that the sensors way up in satellites were confused, and seeing the boundary between the non-salty snow and the salty snow as the top of the ice, when the top of the ice was beneath the salty snow. Therefore they subtracted a couple feet from the sea-ice thickness.
What Nandan et al. reported was that this could lead to an error on 0.07m, not a couple of feet!
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL074506/abstract
Robert Clark January 7, 2018 at 6:59 am
The DMI results and the Cryosat-2 results agree with each other and disagree with the U.S. Navy results in that they both show abundant 3 meter ice, while the U.S. Navy site shows almost all 1.5 meter and lesser ice, with just a sliver of 3 meter thick ice. Compare these two images from DMI and Cryosat-2 to the image I posted above from the U.S. Navy site:
The DMI result is a calculation of the daily ice thickness based on the USNavy Hycom data whereas the Cryosat-2 is the monthly average which will be expected to be thinner at this time of year.
Knowing thickness of the arctic ice is clearly important both for military vessels and commercial shipping so it is important for very practical reasons to know which is right.
Is there a way of doing “ground-truthing” of the models and satellite data to determine their accuracy? Could you for example carry a helicopter by transport ship to the vicinity of deep ice, to return to the ship after doing the ice surveys?
Some of this has been done but I can’t locate it at the moment, Operation IceBridge?
For some odd reason, I jot down notes about ideas and concepts regarding climate, not as a trained scientist, but as an armchair observer.
Just yesterday I was postulating that sea ice would be the knife in the CAGW back. If i was correct in assuming that the warming trend was lower than the current records indicate, then obviously the effects of that warming would be muted. Since sea ice was the “canary in the coal mine” then it would also be the knife in the back as well. It did occur to me that they would adjust their way out of it, but since I had never seen them do that, I thought it would be too easy to prove wrong and would be unscientifically supportable.
The today I read this. While I can’t fathom the science, human behaviour is easier to predict in this kind of case. (Where science is trying hard to support a theory unsupported by the data)
Hypothesis: We are in a normal interstadial warm period. Ice should melt. That several different ways to measure ice conditions indicate that ice is melting is a robust finding that we are still in a warm interstadial period. Unfortunately for the distant future, humanity must ride, for better or for worse the jagged slope back down to very hard times.
I will go to my grave shaking my head at the stupidity of wringing our hands and furrowing our brows over the condition of being warm.
You are so right, this current NH cold spell has already killed quite a few people. The longer it goes on the more die.
Those moronic warmers actually want it to get colder, you couldn’t make it up, but they can & do.
So, they continue to lie. I am shocked, SHOCKED, I say.
So I guess the GCMs need to be re-run with a lower reflective albedo in past years, meaning they’ll run even hotter and miss the instrumental record by an even wider margin.
Just adjust the thing to 0 sq mi, retroactive to 2013, and announce that al-Gore was right so we can all get on with our lives (including snow shovelling).
To the person responsible for the headline…please don’t fall prey to the millennial habit of inventing verbs. “Disappears” ????? How about something less obtuse and more damning that happens to be a correct use of a verb like “ERASES”!?!?!? I hate to sound like the language police, but to “disappear” something sounds ridiculous…
Interesting question. Good magicians are very apt at disappearing things. In some aspects these climate scientists can be compared to magicians in the way they disguise the truth.
People have been verbizing nouns for decades. (Otherwise stated as the rule “All nouns can be verbed.”)
You are nouning your nouns.
the new method is more intuitive and eliminates unusual and unexpected results
In other words it eliminates awkward results.
We hear reports over this side of the Atlantic that temperatures on Mt.Washington have dropped to about -100c. Is this true, or has the tale grown in the telling ?
That’s probably a wind chill temp in F, which is possible.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mount-washington-wind-chill-new-hampshire/
I think the actual temp was -38….with 100 mph winds….wind chill -100
Early this morning when I came in off the road I checked out the website for the weather observatory at the summit of Mt. Washington and copied and pasted on another blog. So here is what is said then:
Summit Conditions
Temperature -32°F
Gust 102 mph
Wind 90 mph
Wind Chill -85°F
Direction 290°(WNW)
Last Updated Saturday, January 6 2018 3:06 AM
Here is the link to the observatory site:
https://www.mountwashington.org/
Remember that you may want to use these tools for archiving things before they are lost in the memory hole:
web.archive.org
archive.is
As I thought, this warming chart also begins in the late seventies like others by so-called “clinate scientists.” and totally hides what is going on in the Arctic. Unknown to these “scientists” is the fact that for two thousand years there was no win the Arctic warming, just a slow, linear decline that ended at the beginning of the twentieth century. At that point a rapid warming, lasting for the next forty years. set in. It did not last because in 1940 a strong cooling startrd. This one lasted thirty years. It, too, came to an end and the warming that the only warming that these so-called climate “scientists” know of started in 1970. By the end of the seventies vit had advanced enough to attract yhe attention of these “scienrists” who thought it was another manifrstation of the greenhouse effect they love. It was nothing of the sort. Even noting that the new warming was twice as fast as predicted by their models did not disturb them. What really happened was a rearrangement of the North Atlantic current system thar redirected the Gulf Stream water flowin g north parallel to the East Coast more directly into theArctic Ocean. I had this much in my book “Wjat Warming” but when Spielhagen et al. took an Arctic cruise and by hand scooped up warm water near Svalbard I. This told me that I better work out what is going on in the Arctic. The result was published in E&E, volume22, issue 8 in 2011 as “Arctic Warming Is Not Greenhouse Warming.” Read and find out what really is happening the Arctic.
Matt G January 6, 2018 at 5:00 pm
Where was this from?
Good question, can you give us a link to the source of your quotation?
“The structure and movement of the sea ice cover
in the Arctic Basin is complex .During each year,
the whole gamut of sea ice types is found, ranging
from nilas and frazil to various stages of first-year
ice to thick multi year ice. The pseudo actual ice area
for the Arctic Ocean at the summer minimum is
about 3.8 x 10 6 square kilometers, and it increases
to about 6.3 x 10 6 square kilometers at its winter
maximum (Figure 4-11). This large seasonal area oscillation,
coupled with the intermittent convergence and divergence of
the ice pack, produces within the Arctic Basin an ice pack
composed of mixtures of first-year and multiyear ice floes of
varying sizes, with a distribution within the basin that varies
seasonally, annually, and interannually. The average
thickness of the ice pack is approximately 3 to 4
meters, although the actual thickness varies markedly
from one point to another.”
NOTICE
Where was this from?
Satellite data between 1973 and 1976 based on 15%+ ice cover.
THIS ARCTIC SEA ICE WAS LOWER THAN EVEN RECENT YEARS. This is the information that they don’t want the public to know.
This backs up the scientific evidence that the Arctic was actually warmer in the past for it cause so many cold outbreaks over mid-latitudes causing colder and more frequent winters. These previous decades occurred because warming Arctic was caused by more negative AO and NAO phases than recently.
Matt G.
Be careful: The writer you quote might be specifically using “sea ice area” for those specific values, not “sea ice extent” as the NSIDC seemingly prefers. All of its press releases and graphic images and “maps”, for example, use its daily sea ice extent values. Only a few of its spreadsheets maintain sea ice area for each region, and those are on tabs internal to the program. I cannot even find a daily “Total Arctic Sea Ice Area” value from the NSIDC.
Cryosphere, when its data was active (before two of its researchers retired/transferred in April-May 2015) released both sea ice area and sea ice extents each day.
Even now, sea ice area values are always less than sea ice extent values for the same day.
True, sea ice area is always lower than extent.
This paper compares northern hemisphere ice extents and area.
https://www.the-cryosphere.net/6/881/2012/tc-6-881-2012.pdf
The minimum 3.8 x 10^6 square kilometers is still lower than virtually all the sea ice area values shown here. The monthly average for the timeline looks around 5.0 x 10^6 square kilometers.
Matt G January 7, 2018 at 4:01 pm
The minimum 3.8 x 10^6 square kilometers is still lower than virtually all the sea ice area values shown here. The monthly average for the timeline looks around 5.0 x 10^6 square kilometers.
There’s a good reason for that, you’re not comparing like with like.
What is usually referred to as the arctic sea ice extent is referred to in that paper as the ‘Northern Hemisphere total’, the Arctic Ocean in that paper is a region of the total (see fig 1(b))
Hardly any sea ice survives out of the Arctic ocean during the late summer minimum over recent years and during this time was hardly different.
“Spatially, during the period of minimum ice extent in September (Figures 4-1 and 4-7), the ice pack is mostly confined to the central Arctic Ocean, with only a small amount of ice coverage in the Greenland Sea, the Kara and Barents Seas, and the Canadian Archipelago. Essentially no ice remains in the Bering Sea, Hudson Bay, the Sea of Okhotsk, and Baffin Bay/Davis Strait.”
The Kara and Barents Seas were included in the pseudo Arctic ocean sea ice area. The Greenland Sea and Canadian Archipelago were about 0.6 x 10^6 square kilometers.
Matt G January 8, 2018 at 3:10 pm
Hardly any sea ice survives out of the Arctic ocean during the late summer minimum over recent years and during this time was hardly different.
Now yes, for example in 2007 the minimum extent was 4.3 million sq km (area 3.1), however between 1973 and 1976 the september minimum ice extent was 7.8 million sq km. Again the values you quoted are area not extent and are for the central Arctic ocean not the Arctic region as whole. The satellite measurement from 1973-76 showed a minimum extent about double the recent minima.
“Spatially, during the period of minimum ice extent in September (Figures 4-1 and 4-7), the ice pack is mostly confined to the central Arctic Ocean, with only a small amount of ice coverage in the Greenland Sea, the Kara and Barents Seas, and the Canadian Archipelago. Essentially no ice remains in the Bering Sea, Hudson Bay, the Sea of Okhotsk, and Baffin Bay/Davis Strait.”
The Kara and Barents Seas were included in the pseudo Arctic ocean sea ice area. The Greenland Sea and Canadian Archipelago were about 0.6 x 10^6 square kilometers.
The Kara and Barents Seas are not included in the central Arctic ocean region that you referred to.
Only make that 4.6 x 10^6 square kilometers of sea ice area and is still below the majority of years for sea ice area.
There are no other sea areas in the Arctic, so any value larger must have measured snow cover on land.
“The Kara and Barents Seas are not included in the central Arctic ocean region that you referred to.”
I read for some reason they treated these as Arctic ocean at least back then, but as it was only 0.2 x 10^6 square kilometers it had little irrelevance.
Matt G January 9, 2018 at 12:00 pm
Only make that 4.6 x 10^6 square kilometers of sea ice area and is still below the majority of years for sea ice area.
There are no other sea areas in the Arctic, so any value larger must have measured snow cover on land.
“The Kara and Barents Seas are not included in the central Arctic ocean region that you referred to.”
I don’t know where you get those values from?
This is the Arctic extent for 1973-6 from the NASA satellite data:
“The extent reaches a minimum of 7.8 x 10^6 square kilometers during September, expands
equator-ward at a rate of 1.8 x 10^6 square kilometers per month from September to December, and
continues expanding slowly to its maximum extent of 14.8 x 10^6 square kilometers in March (Figures
4-10 and 4-16). The ice edge retreats slightly from March to May, after which an increasingly rapid retreat occurs from May to August, with the retreat rate peaking at 2.3 x 10^6 square kilometers per
month from July to August. A slight further retreat from August to September brings the ice to its September minimum”
Their graphs of the individual regions show the following September average areas (>15%) for the regions:
Arctic Ocean 6.0 x 10^6
Kara & Barents 0.4
C Archipelago 0.7
Greenland Sea 0.5
Hudson Bay 0.1
Baffin Bay 0.1
The Cryosphere paper you linked shows minima about 7.5 x 10^6 sq km in 79-80 and about 5.0 x 10^6 sq km
after 2007.
Source:
NASA SP-489
ARCTIC SEA ICE, 1973-1976:
SATELLITE PASSIVE-MICROWAVE OBSERVATIONS
Claire L. Parkinson, Josefino C. Comiso, H. Jay Zwally,
Donald J. Cavalieri, Per Gloersen
Laboratory for Oceans
Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, Maryland 20771
William J. Campbell
U.S. Geological Survey
Ice and Climate Project
University of Puget Sound
Tacoma, Washington 98416
Should be “The monthly minimum average for…………”
I have zero confidence in the arctic sea ice extent from any of these posers. If the arctic is so warm get your beach chair and umbrella and head north!