‘Arctic sea ice continues its downward spiral’… Warmunists keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.

Guest drive-by by David Middleton

NEWS 27 SEPTEMBER 2018

Arctic sea ice continues its downward spiral

At 4.6 million square kilometres in coverage, this year’s sea ice minimum is the sixth lowest on record.

Arctic sea-ice cover following this summer’s melt was the sixth lowest on record, the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, announced on 27 September.

[…]

Nature

There are 40 September ice extent minima  “on record”… How is the 6th lowest out of 40 the continuation of a “spiral” or anything else?

Spiral

Which definition of “spiral” fits this graph?

 

The “the sixth lowest on record” is the continuation of 12 years of no significant change in the September extent…

References

Fetterer, F., K. Knowles, W. Meier, M. Savoie, and A. K. Windnagel. 2017, updated daily. Sea Ice Index, Version 3. [Indicate subset used]. Boulder, Colorado USA. NSIDC: National Snow and Ice Data Center. doi: https://doi.org/10.7265/N5K072F8. [Accessed September 26, 2018].

  • ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/seaice_analysis
  • ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/seaice_analysis/Sea_Ice_Index_Monthly_Data_by_Year_G02135_v3.0.xlsx

Middleton, D.H. 2018. Another Dis-alarming Analysis of Arctic Sea Ice. Watts Up With That?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
151 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kamikazedave
October 2, 2018 3:40 pm

“6th lowest on record”

How long is your record?

Artimus
Reply to  Kamikazedave
October 2, 2018 4:27 pm

From the article:
“There are 40 September ice extent minima “on record”… How is the 6th lowest out of 40 the continuation of a “spiral” or anything else?”

Greg
Reply to  Artimus
October 3, 2018 4:21 am

The idea of spiral comes from a polar plot where the accelerating loss until 2007 forms a spiral. It’s a little obtuse to pretend no to know what this refers to. No one is suggesting the graphs presented here look like a spiral.

However, that fact that it has been essentially flat for over a decade now means the spiral is now a going nowhere circle. THE DEATH SPIRAL IS DEAD.

No one seems to making headlines about the decelerating ice loss. No “we must act now” value in that fact.

Reply to  Greg
October 3, 2018 9:01 am

I think that the definition intended has nothing to do with circular motion. Rather, the def. is one of the definitions presented in the article — “a continuously accelerating decrease”.

And, even using this definition, they clearly do NOT know what it means, because there is NOT any “continuously accelerating decrease” in the ice.

“Downward spiral”, then, should properly be, “normal oscillation” or “oscillation within the norm”.

… which, of course, would make for a really boring headline.

commieBob
Reply to  Kamikazedave
October 2, 2018 6:08 pm

I suppose they’re talking about the modern satellite era.

If you look at proxies going back 1500 years, it appears that modern ice extent is much greater than it used to be, and was for possibly thousands of years. link

… from about 1400 A.D.on through the rest of the 10,000-year-long Holocene, Arctic sea ice extent was much lower than it is today.

Aztecbill
Reply to  commieBob
October 4, 2018 9:02 am

Satellites started mapping Arctic sea ice in 1974. 1979 is used as a starting point because 1974 and 1975 sea ice was significantly lower than 1979, as stated in the 1990 IPCC report.

Aztecbill
Reply to  commieBob
October 4, 2018 9:02 am

Satellites started mapping Arctic sea ice in 1974. 1979 is used as a starting point because 1974 and 1975 sea ice was significantly lower than 1979, as stated in the 1990 IPCC report.

Patrick B
Reply to  Kamikazedave
October 2, 2018 6:25 pm

34th highest on record?

DrTorch
Reply to  Patrick B
October 4, 2018 10:34 am

Touche

Hugs
Reply to  Kamikazedave
October 4, 2018 7:35 am

Six. How so?

angech
October 2, 2018 3:43 pm

Tied for 6th to 8 th place surely ?

Walt D.
October 2, 2018 3:45 pm

” I do not think it means what they think it means.”
Numpty Dumbty Warmunist: “When I use a word,it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

Rocketscientist
Reply to  Walt D.
October 2, 2018 6:18 pm

No, not so much a spiral because it never converges to zero or diverges to infinity, regardless of your coordinate system, polar or Cartesian.
Polar would be interesting as it would need be a yearly cycle, that would look like a wobbly elliptical orbit. When over lapped it would be rather obvious that the wobbles in the orbit will lie well within a rather narrow band.

October 2, 2018 3:49 pm

But of course the heart and soul of the issue here is not the scary trends no matter how scary but whether there is evidence that the scary trends can be made less so by cutting emissions.

https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/08/04/does-global-warming-drive-changes-in-arctic-sea-ice/

MarkW
Reply to  Chaamjamal
October 2, 2018 4:06 pm

If there are no scary trends, than emissions don’t matter.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  MarkW
October 2, 2018 5:21 pm

Plus cutting emissions will not change anything.

Rocketscientist
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
October 2, 2018 6:22 pm

I sarcastically disagree. 😉
Cutting emissions will change a lot of things many for the worse, but climate won’t be one of them.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Chaamjamal
October 2, 2018 11:01 pm

Fantastic statistical analysis!!!!!! Congratulations for all your long effort. I am sure that Willis Eschenbach will be very interested in this. Williiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis where are you?

angech
October 2, 2018 3:59 pm

Globally, the coolest September in the last 10 years.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for September, 2018 was +0.14 deg. C, down a little from +0.19 deg. C in August:

John
October 2, 2018 4:04 pm

“Oh no. It’s worse than we thought!”

Leigh
October 2, 2018 4:05 pm

Lack of arctic sea ice seems to have been a constant problem over the years. That the alarmists suggest it’s a “new” one is the bigger problem.
I can’t recall where I came across the link (probably here) but I kept it.

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/173619274

justadumbengineer
October 2, 2018 4:05 pm

any day now the artic will be ice free

markl
October 2, 2018 4:06 pm

The art of misinformation. Don’t outright lie but convey a false message.

John Loop
October 2, 2018 4:31 pm

Slightly OT…. Interesting thots by CH 13 weatherman in Tampa FL today. High records set all month in Tampa, but always 5+ deg higher than I see at my home. 95+ compared to 90+ almost always! He is suggesting it “may be” because the thermometer is next to the Tampa airport!! He doesn’t really believe all the records. Should I refer him to Anthony and his study? The weatherguy said they [area weathermen] even conferenced about it.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  John Loop
October 2, 2018 7:14 pm

Yeah, I watch that channel every morning for local news, traffic and weather. The temps are at the airport and always read higher than the surrounding area, sometimes by 4-5 degrees F.

C. Paul Pierett
October 2, 2018 4:45 pm

ROTFLMFAO @ Middleton…
..
..
Posts a graph from 2007 to 2018 (11 years) and thinks it indicates a “trend.”

Maybe Middleton should investigate the meaning of the word “trend” (in climate terms) instead of posting a bunch of gibberish about “spiral.”

Next time post 30 years worth of data so we can determine a “trend.”

C. Paul Pierett
Reply to  David Middleton
October 2, 2018 5:03 pm

Where you put “y=0.0005x=0.6701, R2=0.0029” in your graphic.

LOL @ you, too much sniffing that drilling mud.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
October 2, 2018 5:38 pm

C. Paul Pierett,

The graphic and the equation “y=0.005x=0.6701” [sic] were clearly noted as an indication that there has been no significant change from 2007-2018, not an indication of a trend.

Did you eat lead paint chips as a child?

C. Paul Pierett
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
October 2, 2018 5:45 pm

Middleton and Jankowski ,

Both of you seem to have missed the point, so let me put it in simple terms so that both of you can understand how ridiculous your argument is.

SEVEN YEARS OF DATA IS NOT ENOUGH TO DETERMINE A TREND OR ANYTHING SIGNIFICANT.

You both flunk basic climatology 101.

C. Paul Pierett
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
October 2, 2018 5:59 pm

Putting a linear regression line into seven years of data is pointless Middleton. There could be a trend in the data, and there could not be a trend. You’re wasting your time.

C. Paul Pierett
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
October 2, 2018 6:12 pm

Basic English for Mr. Mud Sniffer:
..
Your time interval is too short to discern a trend.

Are the words “interval” and “discern” too big for you to comprehend?

C. Paul Pierett
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
October 2, 2018 6:19 pm

Middleton asks: “Where did I say it was a trend?”
..
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/02/arctic-sea-ice-continues-its-downward-spiral-warmunists-keep-using-that-word-i-do-not-think-it-means-what-they-think-it-means/#comment-2476319

I respond, every time you post no trend in these comments.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
October 2, 2018 7:03 pm

[Seven] years of data is much much better than one tree (YAD061).

[And seven years of severe data is much more series than one severed tree. .mod]

C. Paul Pierett
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
October 2, 2018 5:53 pm

OMG………

LOOK AT THE PAST SEVEN YEARS:
.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2011/plot/uah6/from:2011/trend

0.4C in SEVEN years.

By 2100, it will be 4.5 C warmer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Get it?

C. Paul Pierett
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
October 2, 2018 6:07 pm

30 years doth make a trend/and or significance Mr. Drilling Mud Sniffer. Putting that linear regression line in your graphic, and claiming “no change” makes you the person in need of remedial climatology 101.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
October 2, 2018 6:24 pm

C. Paul Pierett

Thirty years doth suffice to make a trend – for someone trying to avoid having to face the reality of what a 65 year data set would show (a 65 year pseudo-sine wave).

What is the 65 year ice coverage trend?

It is not correct that there is only 40 years of data. There are 46 years of data, however as discussed by a contributor on another thread, the early years they reported 10% ice instead of 15%. As a result there was “a drop” in sea ice coverage in the 1980’s when they moved from reporting 10% to 15%, which of course was a smaller number.

This trick is covered in the book “How To Lie With Data When Lying With Statistics Isn’t Enough”.

I will bet you a box of Smarties that the Arctic 15% ice coverage minimum area next September will be greater than it was this September.

I will bet you another box of Smarties that the GAST will be lower next year than it is this year, even after adjustments.

That’s a sweet offer.

C. Paul Pierett
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
October 2, 2018 6:27 pm

Seems that Mr Drilling Mud Sniffer has no comprehension of what 2-sigma means. Now he’s telling me I should attend ESL classes.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

Does Mud Sniffer understand what “standard deviation” means:

LOL, glass houses.
..
ROTFLMAO

C. Paul Pierett
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
October 2, 2018 6:34 pm

What your funny little graphic with the regression line (y=0.0005x-0.6701, R2=0.029) fails to show is that 2012 has the lowest extend for the entire satellite record.

C. Paul Pierett
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
October 2, 2018 6:38 pm

Dude, you are picking cherries out of the mud you are sniffing…..I know how to read.

C. Paul Pierett
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
October 2, 2018 6:48 pm

Again, “Since 2007, there has been no trend.”

You can’t say that, you don’t have a long enough time interval to determine it.

Remember you said: “Where did I say it was a trend?”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/02/arctic-sea-ice-continues-its-downward-spiral-warmunists-keep-using-that-word-i-do-not-think-it-means-what-they-think-it-means/#comment-2476319

Make up your mind

mike the morlock
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
October 2, 2018 6:57 pm

Hello C. Paul Pierett
Have you ever read anything about the German 1938-39 expedition to Antarctica? It is fascinating, and unlike the modern “ship of fools”, they did not get stuck in the ice.
They brought along two large float planes that could land on ice. They photographed areas of the coast line and compared what they found from previous German expeditions. You really should examine those too.
In the meantime, relax have good drink, Antarctica is not trending downward. nor is it in a death spiral. The Germans placed marks to claim their part of the continent and documented the locations. Many were at the limit of their aircraft’s range. No you will not find them, but they were replaced by markers of other nations.
Guess the rest.

michael

John Endicott
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
October 3, 2018 6:15 am

Dude, you are picking cherries out of the mud you are sniffing…..I know how to read

from reading your replies in this thread, it’s pretty conclusive that you do not.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
October 3, 2018 7:51 am

We get it. You were made to look foolish and don’t know how to handle it. Nobody made a claim about a trend in the data, and now you are making trends with short-term data to show how silly making trends with short-term data is.

By the way, 2007-2018 is seven years in your language, dimension, or IQ bracket?

MarkW
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
October 3, 2018 8:09 am

John, it’s not that he doesn’t know how to read, but rather he’s desperate to discredit any claim that goes against his religion.
As a result he has to result to ever more ridiculous and unsupported claims.

His goal is distraction and delay, not education.

John Tillman
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
October 3, 2018 6:07 pm

C. Paul Pierett October 2, 2018 at 5:53 pm

Antarctic sea ice grew from 1979 to 2014, so clearly, CO2 increase had no effect there.

Arctic sea ice fell from 1979 to 2012, but has risen since then. It fell from 1979-88, from 1989-98 and from 1999 to 2008, but it has stayed flat for the past decade, bottoming out in 2012. Based on observations over the past few centuries, we know that Arctic sea ice extent fluctuates naturally on about a 60-year cycle, so we should expect 2009-18 to average higher than the past decade.

SkepticGoneWild
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
October 2, 2018 6:41 pm

Paul,

The 5th Assessment report evaluated the temperature haitus from 1998 to 2012, and calculated its trend.

I suggest you do a little reading before posting nonsense.

AKSurveyor
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
October 2, 2018 6:48 pm

@C.P.P.
Dude, I would buy you a clue, but it looks like it would be wasted, so I will save it for a beer to toast that the ice has not had a significant change since 2007. It just doesn’t fit the agenda of some though.

C. Paul Pierett
Reply to  AKSurveyor
October 2, 2018 6:55 pm

AK, do you know what 2 standard deviation means?

nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

AKSurveyor
Reply to  AKSurveyor
October 2, 2018 7:06 pm

@cpp
Well I suppose I do know what 2 standard deviations is since I work with GPS static data and have done so since the 1990s. So I I’ll buy another beer on that failed attempt.
But enough feeding the trolls for now

Jim edwards
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
October 2, 2018 4:59 pm

Isn’t this the point of the article.

Thomas Englert
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
October 2, 2018 6:16 pm

The first chart is 40 years, the second chart 12 years.

Most of the ice extent decline appears to occur over the 1998-2007 decade. 40 years ago, the ice was at or near the maximum for the last 100 years IIRC.

C. Paul Pierett
Reply to  David Middleton
October 2, 2018 6:42 pm

Moderator, if Middleton continues with this ESL thing, is it OK for me to call him an arse-hole?

[No. But thank you for asking. .mod]

C. Paul Pierett
Reply to  David Middleton
October 2, 2018 7:00 pm

If I am not mistaken, you are more or less a contemporary of the current nominee for SCOTUS. Did you ever run in to him in one of your drunken stupors while you were at SCSU in New Haven?

C. Paul Pierett
Reply to  David Middleton
October 2, 2018 7:14 pm

LMAO, you talk about ESL for me, but you don’t deny my insinuation that you’ve had “drunken stupors.” Ha ha ha ha ha

If the word “insinuation” too big for you, Mr. Google will provide you with a definition.

[Cut it out. Now. Address the math, address the science, address the conclusions. Nothing else. .mod]

C. Paul Pierett
Reply to  David Middleton
October 2, 2018 7:17 pm

Maybe you like four letter words better.
..
..
Can you spell L-U-S-H?

Especially since you can recall the prices of beer so well…

[Cut it out. Now. Address the math, address the science, address the conclusions. Nothing else. .mod]

Dave Burton
Reply to  David Middleton
October 2, 2018 7:35 pm

The definition of lush in 1970 isn’t that much different than the definition of lush today.

C. Paul Pierett
Reply to  David Middleton
October 2, 2018 7:42 pm

If you contend I have an “ESL” issue, I’ll contend you don’t have a clue what the word “trend” in climatology means. Especially your silly graphic posted in the article.

. Paul Pierett
Reply to  David Middleton
October 2, 2018 7:46 pm

Seriously Mr. “mod” I would appreciate it if you’d get on Middleton’s case about this “ESL” thing. I know you have to defer to him because of his status as someone that would give Willard a blow job and I would not, but come on why can’t you be “fair?”.

Reply to  David Middleton
October 3, 2018 9:42 am

Maybe I can help. From the NATURE article that David M referenced in his article:

“The most recent calculations, from 2017, show that Arctic sea-ice coverage each September has declined by 13.2% per decade. A relatively cool July helped to slow this year’s rate of loss.”

If there were any “spiraling” going on, then this percentage would not have been reported like this, but rather as a percentage of accelerating DECLINE. But NO mention of “accelerating decline” was made, … just a straight percentage of 13.2% per decade.

Now note the part of the NATURE quote about how the “cool July helped to slow this year’s rate …” . If the rate SLOWS, then it is NOT accelerating downward, which means NO “continuing spiraling downward.”

Another quote from the NATURE article:

“Since satellite records began in 1979, the 12 lowest extents have all happened in the past 12 years. The record low came in 2012, at 3.39 million square kilometres.”

So, NATURE seems to think that twelve years is an adequate frame of reference within which to notice low patterns. It just so happens that these 12 years constitute NATURE’s frame of reference within which the 12 lowest extents in all previous data have occurred. NATURE thinks this is enough time to note that 12 lows have happened, compared to the forty or so over which data has been consistently gathered, with little consideration for the greater expanse of geological time that came before this meager 40 or so. NATURE chooses twelve years out of forty or so, because these twelve years show what is desired — LOW points. But again, these low points are NOT ACCELERATING LOW POINTS. Hence, there is positively zero “spiraling downward”.

The NATURE headline is a lie. Simple as that.

SkepticGoneWild
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
October 2, 2018 6:32 pm

Paul,

30 years of climate data is what’s considered a climate “normal”. There is nothing restricting calculating a trend of a lesser time period in climate studies.

In fact, the last IPCC assessment report examined a temperature haitus from 1998 to 2012 and gave its trend.

I suggest you read a little more before posting nonsense.

MarkW
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
October 3, 2018 7:51 am

Speaking of cherry picking, why not go back several hundred years or even several thousand years.
Why is the last 30 so special?

Mickey Reno
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
October 3, 2018 6:19 pm

Oh, this is exciting. Your Johnson is out and your bladder appears to be full to overflowing. We haven’t had a good pissing contest around here for 2, maybe 3 hours.

Lokki
October 2, 2018 5:05 pm

I get so confused. The ‘scientists’ sneer at the Bible crowd for having claimed that the earth is only 4500 years old (sure that claim was over a hundred years ago but it still makes a good story) while we all know that the earth has at least 4 Billion years of history.

And yet, the Warmists insist on only using 40 years of that 4 Billion year history and extrapolating doom in the future from it.

Am I wrong to think this ridiculous? It is worse than watching a 2-second clip of a 3-hour football game and predicting the winner based on that.

Duster
Reply to  Lokki
October 2, 2018 5:31 pm

No you aren’t. What jumps out about climate “scientists” is the short attention span they have. There are in geology numerous models that agree reasonably well for planetary climate and atmospheric content that span hundreds of millions of years. No serious geologist, paleontologist, or archaeologist would call any record spanning a period of a mere 2,000 years from the present “paleo-” anything. That’s “historical.”

October 2, 2018 5:16 pm

.
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
.

This is what Global Warming looks like.

Warning – may cause nightmares.

https://agree-to-disagree.com/this-is-what-global-warming-looks-like

Jtom
Reply to  Sheldon Walker
October 2, 2018 9:35 pm

You purport to show theoretical global warming since 1880. In that case, most of your temperature map should be colored in grey, i.e., no data.
You show no grey at all.
Big fail, followed by, so what? Few deny the earth had been warming since the end of the little ice age, but few believe there is justification to extrapolate that warming into the far future.

Perhaps you should finish your education before going further.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Jtom
October 3, 2018 10:41 am

Satire. An acquired taste, I know.

Bruce Cobb
October 2, 2018 5:19 pm

Yes – I see it now, the corkscrew pattern, swirling, swirling, downward, and going faster and faster, like the water in a toilet after it’s been flushed. Oh wait, sorry, that’s climate science I’m describing. The ice is fine.

Latitude
October 2, 2018 5:23 pm

…and flat for the past 3 years

The whole time while China is cranking it out

Reply to  Latitude
October 2, 2018 6:19 pm

It seems like yesterday.. sigh… the Arctic was suppose to be ice free by 2008…

kramer
October 2, 2018 5:45 pm

I thought I once read on this site that the NSIDC was going to recalculate the way they measure the ice. I also recall them saying in the same article that the new way would result in slightly lower ice area.

Am I nuts?

Phil.
Reply to  kramer
October 4, 2018 12:03 pm

They changed the method they used to calculate the monthly mean from the daily values to make it more intuitive (the previous method did not match the average of the daily extents). The monthly values did decrease slightly, the daily values did not.

Tom Abbott
October 2, 2018 6:09 pm

The satellite arctic sea ice record started in 1979, a year in which the arctic ice extent was the highest since the hot 1930’s. Remember, we are in a temperature downtrend since the 1930’s, and the arctic sea ice was building to a peak in 1979 as the temperatures cooled off. Then in about 1979, the temperatures started to increase and the arctic sea ice started melting.

Starting a chart in 1979 does not give the entire picture of arctic sea ice.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  David Middleton
October 2, 2018 6:36 pm

What about the earlier 1973-1979 satellite data? What is that not in the “satellite era”? I assumed “they” picked the 1979 starting point because that was the recent maximum area. If you were to point out that ice extent increased from 1973-1979 that would imply that the Arctic region was cooling, which if course it was for the previous 3 decades.

It is interesting, given the comments above about 7 years as a data set, that the Climategate emails show Phil Jones et al worrying about a 7 year temperature pause. It shows that 7 years is a significant length of time to have a major prediction of CAGW fail.

I also think it is hilarious that the warmists assume the Earth is 150 or maybe 1000 years old, and therefore data can’t be older than that, while complaining about creationists saying it is 6500. The Alarmed could improve their presentations by agreeing with the creationists that the Earth is at least 6500 years old then plot the sea level, temperature proxies and CO2 over that time frame. T’would be interesting to see.

OT: A great lady just up the road in Waterloo won the Nobel Prize for Physics this week for her work on femtosecond lasers. Congrats.

steven mosher
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 2, 2018 6:41 pm

“The satellite arctic sea ice record started in 1979, a year in which the arctic ice extent was the highest since the hot 1930’s.”

why would it matter that the 30s were hot? do you think there would have been less ice. why?

AKSurveyor
Reply to  David Middleton
October 2, 2018 6:57 pm

+100

AKSurveyor
Reply to  AKSurveyor
October 2, 2018 7:12 pm

For you Dave ofc
It fell under the wrong comment
Sry

Tom Abbott
Reply to  AKSurveyor
October 3, 2018 5:01 am

Thanks for the excellent comment and charts, David. You provided what I was looking for: The longer-term picture about arctic sea ice.. As you said, “there’s nothing to see here” with regard to human-derived CO2.

John Endicott
Reply to  David Middleton
October 3, 2018 6:23 am

Kudos to you David. You put in a lot more effort than was necessary (certainly more effort than I’d have bothered) to respond to a Mosh drive-by. Pity he’ll not respond to a word of it, and if he ever does reply to it, it’ll be just another of his patented drive-by postings.

John Endicott
Reply to  John Endicott
October 3, 2018 11:22 am

David, even just copy/pasting a 2011 comment is more effort that his drive-by’s are worth. so well done for going even that little bit extra.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  steven mosher
October 2, 2018 7:54 pm

steven mosher, In reply to Tom Abbott.

“The satellite arctic sea ice record started in 1979, a year in which the arctic ice extent was the highest since the hot 1930’s.”

The highest Arctic Sea Ice average levels (across the entire year, and for the Jan-May growth period) are NOT 1979, but 1982-1983.
Arctic sea ice extents (average for the year) were growing from 1979-1983.

The Arctic sea ice has a negative feedback that is ignored by those proclaiming their “Arctic death spiral” for friends and profits.
Less Arctic sea ice means more heat is absorbed between mid-April to mid-August each year into the newly exposed Arctic Ocean. There is no doubt about that. But less Arctic Sea Ice ALSO means more heat is lost from that same exposed Arctic Ocean over the remaining 7 months of the year (and, indeed, over the 5 months of continuous arctic sunlight) than is lost from an equal ice-covered surface.
So, less Arctic Sea Ice (at minimum in Sept) means more heat lost from the Arctic Ocean =
A colder Arctic Ocean surface in Jan-Feb-Mar =
More sea ice gain the next March-April-May.

“Too much” sea ice through the summer =
Less heat lost from the Arctic Ocean +
More heat energy reflected from the ice-covered areas =
A warmer Arctic Ocean upper surface =
More melting in mid and late summer =
A smaller Arctic Sea Ice minimum in September.

MarkW
Reply to  RACookPE1978
October 3, 2018 8:29 am

Two points,
1) Absence of ice does allow the water to absorb more energy from the sun, however at those low angles, the amount of extra heat is small.
2) Even in the summer, absence of ice allows more heat to escape from the water.

Whether the extra heat being lost is more or less than the extra heat being absorbed is a question I can’t answer.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  MarkW
October 4, 2018 11:40 am

“2) Even in the summer, absence of ice allows more heat to escape from the water.”

Not true.
This study …

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/2006JD008230.pdf

Shows that in July there is 122 W/m^2 of SW entering the Arctic ocean domain and just 19 of LW leaving.
Therefore a net solar warming (for July).

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 4, 2018 12:25 pm

Anthony Banton

Shows that in July there is 122 W/m^2 of SW entering the Arctic ocean domain and just 19 of LW leaving.
Therefore a net solar warming (for July).

Absolutely. No question that the newly-exposed Arctic Ocean (if sea ice is below “average” ) will absorb more solar energy between mid-April and mid-August than is lost by the increased heat loss from that same area of ocean. And the Arctic sea ice anomaly IS CONSTANT all year for all practical purposes. The Arctic sea ice anomaly does not decrease in the fall, winter, or spring.

Now. What are the net heat exchange values for every month between mid-August and mid-April?

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 2, 2018 7:26 pm

Careful.
We “use” 1979 as the start date for the satellite record of Arctic Sea Ice Extent (and Area).

The first number was recorded for 26 Oct 1978.
However, the first 6 years of the satellite record, the values are written for alternating “days”. Tuesday would be recorded, then Thursday, then Saturday, then Monday …

So, for the month of September, there are only:
36 “years” of values for Sept 2,
36 for Sept 12,
36 for Sept 22, etc.
For Sept 2, we only know 1981, 1983, 1984, and 1986. ’87 on is continuous.
For Sept 3, we only know 1979, 1980, 1982, 1985. Skipped ’86, then ’87 on is continuous.
For Sept 4, we repeat Sept 2’s years. Up until ’87 again, when the record becomes continuous.
For Sept 5, again – 1979, 1980, 1982, and 1985.

So, we have “as much as” 36 year’s of arctic sea ice values. For many dates from 001 to 366, we only have 32 records! (And even fewer for leap years).

Now, 32 years’ of data is “more than” Mr C. Paul Pierett’s “much-hyped 30 years of climate data… Even if non-continuous years can be included in that series.

However, for Arctic sea ice minimum – which IS across the month of September , we actually have:
18 years (1979-1996) of near-steady high arctic sea ice extents. Yes, average Arctic Sea Ice was higher in Sept 1996 than in Sept 1979!)
Only 9 years of steady decline (1997 – 2006) – Yes, only 9 years of decline!
And now 12 years (2007-2018) of steady (not increasing, not decreasing) Arctic sea ice minimum extents.
However, since 2012, Arctic sea ice minimums have generally been increasing – and 2018 is greater than 8 of the past 12 years.
Increasing definitively since 2012? Not really.

But no longer decreasing.

Now, what “trend” should be developed for Arctic Sea Ice minimums in September?

Arctci sea ice maximums show a general decline – there is little to show a cyclic pattern. But the Arctic Sea Ice minimums show a cyclical 60-70 year cyclical trend. And with only 9 years of decline out of 36 years of recorded sea ice extents? What evidence – other than a straight line – shows a continuing decline in future Arctic sea ice minimums.

Besides, Over the entire year, less Arctic sea ice over the entire year means “More heat energy is lost from the exposed Arctic Ocean to the infinite blackness of space than is gained in the five months of excess sunshine on that same Arctic Ocean.”

Cube
October 2, 2018 6:37 pm

Test

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Robert
October 2, 2018 8:43 pm

I think that’s just another exhibit for the prosecution in the trial of “The Science Is Settled™”! The science is never settled!

Robert
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
October 2, 2018 8:51 pm

Think your right considering the wheel weights on a tire.

Loren Wilson
October 2, 2018 7:36 pm

I need a bumper sticker that reads: “Avert the next ice age – burn more coal!”

TDBraun
October 2, 2018 10:16 pm

Instead of a serial, perhaps it is shaped more like a slinky stepped on by an elephant.

Patrick MJD
October 2, 2018 11:26 pm
Lawrence Todd
October 3, 2018 12:15 am

I do not know for sure but in 1979 we were still in a time when “Climate” scientists were predicting a coming ice age. I would be it was also a time of increased artic ice so that a chart starting then would be cherry picking. Can someone with more knowledge in the area confirm or deny my thoughts. I remember the time frame because I was a working applied mathematician in space sciences and was a contrarian even then because i was predicting the global warming.

October 3, 2018 1:16 am

Oooops, anybody seen my figures for 1949-1979?!

tty
October 3, 2018 1:26 am

That change from 10% to 15% ice cutoff point in 1978 is real weird, because sea-ice has ”always” been recorded/reported in 10% increments (the international 10-ball scale where 0-ball is ice-free and 10-ball compact/fast ice).

That change in one fell swoop made all older sea-ice records incompatible and impossible to recalculate to the new standard. It also makes any current ice-reports intended for practical use (like e. g. Canadian, Danish, Norwegian or Russian ice service data) incompatible. There is no “1.5-ball”.

Incidentally 1-ball is usually regarded as maximum for pure sailing vessels and small craft without icebreaking capabilities.

So one can only wonder was this a very unthinking or a very deliberate decision?

Anthony Banton
October 3, 2018 3:26 am

What strikes me about the extent graph, is that if you make the 2007 and 2012 (denizens say freakish and caused by a storm anyway) extents less extreme than the long-term trend-line, then it is exactly on track.
Which is why choosing a short period tells you nothing of it.
The illusion of a “corner turned” depends on ignoring the fact that 2007 and 2012 where outliers.

comment image

tty
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 3, 2018 4:30 am

Only 2012 was due to a storm in August. Not 2007.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  tty
October 3, 2018 12:09 pm

I know. That’s what I said. The comment in brackets comes after 2012.

Anthony Banton
October 3, 2018 3:33 am

This is more of a “spiral”…

comment image

The most persistent trend for Arctic sea-ice is the reduction in max extent.

Greg
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 3, 2018 4:36 am

Well, it’s just a case of moving the goal posts, yet again.

In 2007, Arctic sea ice minimum was the poster child “canary in the coal mine” for alarmists. Again in 2012. When ice volume jumped back up by 45% in 2013 this went TOTALLY unreported.

Attention then switched to Antarctica, which had previously been carefully hidden since sea ice was increasing there while they wailed about Arctic sea ice.

Now the annual minimum does not fit the alarmist agenda they pivot to talking about the max extent. In short they pick any variable which at the current time can be declared a “canary” and wilfully obscure the fact that the previous canary is feeling fine.

The whole point of canaries is not just to look when they are sick to but to note when they are healthy meaning it is SAFE to carry on mining COAL.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Greg
October 4, 2018 11:55 am

“Now the annual minimum does not fit the alarmist agenda they pivot to talking about the max extent”

There may or may not be an “alarmist” agenda but one thing is for sure – this place will be sure to find one.
BUT it is not the IPCC agenda (repository if the consensus science)…..

comment image

Arctic Sea-ice decline is below IPCC projections.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  David Middleton
October 5, 2018 5:22 am

“Wrong”
The graph shows what I said …

“Arctic Sea-ice decline is below IPCC projections.”

I didn’t say by what amount.
Therefore not wrong.

Phil.
Reply to  David Middleton
October 3, 2018 6:12 am

Well cutting a section through a spiral wouldn’t be expected to show the spiral nature. Try these different ways of showing the total seasonal behavior.
comment image

http://iwantsomeproof.com/extimg/sie_nsidc_annual_polar_graph.png

tty
October 3, 2018 4:29 am

That is what I call a real artful diagram, variety “truncated axis”.

The “zero point” is 82,3 % of the top of the diagram….

tty
October 3, 2018 4:48 am

And Sea-ice is still at near-record levels for the Holocene:

http://sci-hub.tw/10.1002/jqs.2929

And in the Northwest Passage the downward spiral is clearly absent, at least if applied to ice conditions….

http://arcticnorthwestpassage.blogspot.com/2018/09/an-early-end-to-arctics-2018-minimum.html

RACookPE1978
Editor
October 4, 2018 9:24 am

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/sea-ice-tools/
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/seaice_analysis/Sea_Ice_Index_Regional_Daily_Data_G02135_v3.0.xlsx

Year        1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018
Average
All_Year  537903	585325	600670	600220	600203	601069	632075	603550	564153	562289	570748	598436	558050	554182	552133	599328	607411	565002	563705	594409	584092
Jul-Sep   245944	293516	327542	355842	371957	390112	422434	352654	292412	257858	296795	342436	270455	230541	223725	349243	375338	268514	266652	324597	354988
Aug-Sept  164879	216884	245263	297563	297777	343809	384119	293435	221517	169453	206352	275561	190523	135562	126863	286269	322342	184756	192783	270609	304259
Sep 1-30  116034	167523	209767	271469	264255	315876	372078	272059	192006	153137	183021	234113	167509	112987	 96914	261896	287570	143557	193641	251418	291184

Canadian Archipelago Sea Ice Areas in 2017 AND 2018 are substantially higher than recent years!
The average for September was more than double 2015, triple the (record low) in 2012.

RACookPE1978
Editor
October 4, 2018 9:38 am

Regional Sea Ice Update.
Bering Sea Ice Area.
At 4269.65 sq km on Oct 03 2018, Bering Sea Ice Area is higher than any reading since 1994.
For the first year ever recorded, Bering Sea Ice did not melt out over the summer months of July-Aug-Sept!

(Actually, Bering Sea Ice (Area) did not melt out in August 2016 and 2017 either, but those values were erased this summer when the NSIDC changed them to 0.0 on 23 July. There were occasional 0.0 values for the Bering Sea in Sept 2016 and 2017 before those were erased as well.)

Before it changes.

[Month Day      2007    2008    2009    2010    2011    2012    2013    2014    2015    2016    2017    2018 ]
August	1.0	436.8	345.7	373.5	178.6	534.2	496.7	263.5	263.7	283.5	947.7	355.7	2273.2
	2.0	349.7	297.7	256.9	109.1	388.7	373.2	195.2	139.4	164.9	734.2	270.4	1962.1
	3.0	184.5	212.1	142.0	83.9	241.8	135.8	118.7	139.4	144.1	461.5	148.4	1626.7
	4.0	72.4	96.5	57.8	18.3	57.6	135.8	38.6	99.7	81.8	213.0	122.4	1349.6
	5.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1043.3
	6.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	909.8
	7.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	817.0
	8.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	871.0
	9.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	859.5
	10.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	761.7
	11.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	698.6
	12.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	698.8
	13.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1004.4
	14.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1095.9
	15.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1050.2
	16.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1110.6
	17.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1094.0
	18.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	847.7
	19.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	753.3
	20.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	872.2
	21.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1032.5
	22.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	978.6
	23.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	805.8
	24.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	839.4
	25.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	744.9
	26.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	536.3
	27.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	574.5
	28.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	771.5
	29.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	740.6
	30.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	805.4
	31.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	838.7
Sept	1.0	76.1	70.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	18.9	57.8	107.6	0.0	21.3	0.0	749.9
	2.0	121.5	149.7	18.4	18.9	0.0	39.8	80.4	107.6	0.0	21.3	0.0	634.6
	3.0	162.7	192.3	43.7	38.2	0.0	81.9	129.9	107.6	0.0	21.3	148.4	469.1
	4.0	387.5	192.3	43.7	74.8	0.0	148.0	203.1	128.5	0.0	21.3	148.4	444.8
	5.0	411.2	192.3	43.7	173.4	79.0	392.6	245.7	128.5	20.4	97.9	148.4	348.2
	6.0	371.5	121.6	43.7	254.5	426.0	538.4	360.1	20.8	67.4	270.0	166.6	329.9
	7.0	415.7	42.6	162.5	327.2	744.9	517.5	337.5	20.8	118.2	443.0	166.6	200.0
	8.0	439.0	18.4	137.3	355.2	905.3	607.9	288.0	20.8	159.3	443.0	18.2	200.0
	9.0	721.3	83.3	137.3	318.6	924.7	541.8	214.8	20.4	159.3	443.0	18.2	95.7
	10.0	795.1	292.6	199.8	220.0	915.0	320.0	172.1	82.4	329.3	366.4	18.2	76.5
	11.0	881.5	446.3	226.5	138.8	610.9	155.3	0.0	132.3	282.3	173.0	0.0	155.5
	12.0	847.0	446.3	89.2	94.3	552.9	155.3	22.3	210.9	231.4	74.2	113.5	136.6
	13.0	1184.9	427.9	249.1	95.4	440.0	22.8	22.3	405.8	190.4	124.6	171.3	313.0
	14.0	740.6	363.0	405.7	95.4	492.8	22.8	22.3	538.1	360.6	124.6	171.3	391.7
	15.0	662.0	153.7	343.1	95.4	571.0	0.0	170.2	476.1	195.4	277.3	171.3	554.3
	16.0	539.2	0.0	335.4	95.4	528.0	240.1	170.2	446.5	195.4	297.4	193.6	567.3
	17.0	510.0	67.8	376.6	48.5	267.1	240.1	147.9	368.0	195.4	223.2	80.1	646.4
	18.0	176.1	110.0	303.6	0.0	219.6	260.0	147.9	216.7	195.4	172.9	174.5	488.8
	19.0	406.6	292.7	197.9	141.1	166.3	260.0	147.9	370.1	25.2	254.1	174.5	455.7
	20.0	416.8	292.7	355.4	141.1	273.6	260.0	0.0	416.1	0.0	271.2	174.5	293.1
	21.0	478.3	292.7	359.8	159.6	347.7	19.9	0.0	395.7	0.0	251.0	326.7	201.0
	22.0	535.5	244.3	318.6	159.6	432.5	19.9	20.4	435.8	0.0	270.4	484.7	144.1
	23.0	489.3	454.4	254.9	159.6	648.7	0.0	20.4	531.9	0.0	270.4	485.7	125.2
	24.0	260.3	271.7	204.1	18.4	629.8	0.0	20.4	225.8	174.0	189.1	506.3	197.4
	25.0	458.4	290.1	46.5	38.3	375.1	0.0	20.4	179.8	211.1	19.4	654.2	197.4
	26.0	439.5	290.1	23.3	19.9	301.0	147.4	20.4	179.8	211.1	38.6	479.7	197.4
	27.0	380.6	270.7	23.3	19.9	216.2	316.1	0.0	158.6	356.6	19.2	340.6	175.3
	28.0	358.4	18.4	0.0	19.9	0.0	316.1	18.9	42.2	356.6	408.1	187.4	364.4
	29.0	294.1	18.4	169.2	41.2	0.0	316.1	18.9	42.2	182.6	427.0	166.8	211.7
	30.0	66.8	0.0	169.2	39.8	0.0	316.1	18.9	42.2	145.5	627.7	18.9	211.7
October	1.0	358.1	483.1	413.1	563.7	510.2	1117.1	493.0	984.6	1784.6	1755.1	1129.8	921.2
	2.0	790.4	1140.7	875.6	1372.0	1240.7	1899.7	1266.2	1940.0	2977.6	2319.7	1606.8	2634.9
	3.0	1276.2	1675.1	2470.5	1774.2	1467.0	2429.1	2124.6	2361.5	3820.6	2488.7	2093.7	4269.7
	4.0	1813.3	1996.9	2662.6	2239.9	1824.3	3628.4	2600.5	2903.9	4595.2	3536.3	2967.6	
	5.0	2686.6	2340.0	3360.5	2650.7	2251.8	4815.4	4356.8	3583.6	5243.0	5101.9	4557.8	
	6.0	2674.3	2372.1	3843.2	2672.1	2086.1	4632.9	4707.0	3246.8	5367.0	5369.0	4070.5	
	7.0	2685.7	2331.2	4296.2	2140.9	1628.4	4080.0	4475.3	2605.4	4935.2	5684.3	4010.7	
	8.0	2664.4	2338.9	3495.3	2246.5	1665.0	4330.5	4697.9	2687.8	4881.9	6711.7	4096.2	
	9.0	2660.1	2843.1	3867.3	2194.9	1743.6	3639.2	5010.1	2701.4	4853.9	6879.5	4218.0	
	10.0	2633.4	3597.1	4846.5	2105.5	1688.4	3414.3	4046.1	2680.9	5086.4	5962.9	3316.5	
	11.0	2789.3	3449.3	5178.0	2106.8	1989.5	3044.6	4096.8	2625.0	4058.1	5222.3	3975.3	
	12.0	2861.4	3767.9	5119.5	2371.5	2968.2	3067.2	4177.2	2725.7	3582.5	5347.2	5128.7	
	13.0	2749.0	4128.0	4677.1	2295.5	3879.9	2478.9	3722.4	3035.1	3123.8	4499.7	5371.8	
	14.0	2657.2	4109.3	4283.1	2382.0	3928.6	2354.2	3417.1	3208.9	2908.6	3781.8	4946.2	
	15.0	2537.7	3420.7	3195.6	2457.8	3916.2	1770.6	3137.2	3014.1	2779.0	3497.7	4560.3	
	16.0	2489.5	3381.1	2525.0	2538.2	3588.6	1658.7	2719.8	2696.5	2811.4	3843.2	3598.8	
	17.0	2259.3	2794.4	2027.1	2725.1	2949.0	1637.7	2513.0	2709.8	3067.9	3270.9	2415.3	
	18.0	2383.7	2303.9	2046.0	2700.2	2499.5	1962.9	2589.1	2327.8	3185.7	2846.1	1942.1	
	19.0	2492.9	1859.3	2082.6	3101.0	3272.5	2152.6	3256.4	1995.2	3392.0	2715.0	1743.9	
	20.0	2132.0	1843.1	1846.2	3520.6	3650.4	2409.3	3484.1	1945.5	3319.4	2492.1	1892.4	
	21.0	2112.6	1901.5	1849.7	3372.4	3926.3	2525.9	3623.4	2240.7	3208.1	1748.8	1928.0	
	22.0	2327.8	1938.7	2117.3	3137.8	3908.3	2715.5	3781.7	2486.5	3067.0	1949.6	1881.9	
	23.0	2827.2	1853.2	2201.3	3157.1	3571.2	3022.8	3674.7	2860.9	2962.0	2699.6	2196.8	
	24.0	2798.1	1924.0	2229.8	2684.7	2652.7	3347.3	3281.3	2820.9	2593.2	3259.9	2369.9	
	25.0	3284.6	2200.2	2339.1	2163.9	2403.4	3554.8	3675.9	2797.1	2289.7	5079.4	2579.5	
	26.0	3692.7	2625.0	2280.6	2451.0	2222.3	3477.4	3680.5	2895.9	2328.7	5667.4	2693.3	
	27.0	3506.5	3370.3	2087.4	3690.8	2073.5	3251.0	3911.9	3554.3	2449.4	5424.4	2639.9	
	28.0	3030.6	4803.0	2280.1	3890.6	2103.4	2815.6	4626.6	3093.4	2705.2	7083.0	2298.5	
	29.0	2901.8	6464.1	2578.6	3838.5	2331.8	2244.1	4366.2	3555.4	2813.1	7216.2	2041.3	
	30.0	2598.1	7739.4	2579.5	4250.1	2553.1	1766.5	3614.1	3664.6	2826.4	5515.7	2299.9	
	31.0	2359.1	9339.0	2748.0	3914.4	2557.2	1842.9	3292.8	3656.1	2912.4	5397.9	2606.8	

[Added line for year to clarify table. .mod]

Phil.
Reply to  RACookPE1978
October 4, 2018 10:57 am

For the first year ever recorded, Bering Sea Ice did not melt out over the summer months of July-Aug-Sept!

As I have explained to you before the Bering sea ice melted out in May but you keep posting the same nonsense.
Look at all the ice in the Bering now, see the big chunk in the bay on the east side of the strait.
comment image

Now look at the satellite photo of the same bay:
https://go.nasa.gov/2Nn9mTk

See no ice!

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Phil.
October 4, 2018 12:44 pm

As I have explained to you before the Bering sea ice melted out in May but you keep posting the same nonsense.
Look at all the ice in the Bering now, see the big chunk in the bay on the east side of the strait.

Yes, you have said that before.

Now, please address the question: “What area of Arctic sea ice at latitude 60 north is “important”?
Is the “loss” of 1 sq kilometer of sea ice serious? Obviously not.
But the NSIDC maintains records to 0.001 sq kilometer.
Is the “loss” of 10 sq kilometers of sea ice serious? Obviously not.
But the NSIDC retains records of such sea ice values – unless they are between 01 August and 01 Sept. Then they delete them.
Is the “loss” of 100 sq kilometers of sea ice serious? Obviously not.
yet the total of all NH sea ice shelves is less than 500 sq kilometers – but THOSE are considered a vital indication of Arctic warming, and MUST be corrected to prevent future ice shelf loss. (At least according to the climate researchers who make their lives studying the northern hemisphere sea ice shelves off of Greenland and Canada.)
But the NSIDC retains records of those sea ice values below 100 sq kilometers – unless they are between 01 August and 01 Sept. Then they delete them.

Is the “loss” of 1000 sq kilometers of sea ice serious? Not so obvious an answer, is it?
But the NSIDC retains records of such sea ice values – unless they are between 01 August and 01 Sept.

The NSIDC INCREASES sea ice areas as much as 6000 sq kilometers – as long as they are between 01 October and 01 July 2016 and 01 October and 01 July 2017.
Otherwise, the NSIDDC reduces sea ice areas.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  RACookPE1978
October 4, 2018 3:31 pm

This for the Sea of Okhotsk, data from the NSIDC database through 03 Oct 2018.

                1998    1999    2000    2001    2002    2003    2004    2005    2006    2007    2008    2009    2010    2011    2012    2013    2014    2015    2016    2017    2018
July	1.0	15610.7	28688.9	11604.9	35561.8	13757.0	11664.8	19608.2	24567.8	18600.8	16452.7	14444.1	21851.5	15635.2	8350.9	15373.0	31406.4	16756.8	23458.2	13469.7	13197.2	13601.5
	2.0	12028.6	21463.4	8941.4	25715.9	9962.0	9456.5	14451.0	17849.3	14262.1	11948.6	9977.9	17122.7	10866.3	6153.0	11114.0	22655.6	12864.4	17117.3	9163.2	8959.9	10618.8
	3.0	8036.4	14454.9	5871.1	16689.2	7074.3	6488.8	9445.5	12088.5	9428.7	7545.9	5700.5	11644.2	7131.4	4318.5	7321.9	14793.0	8673.9	11224.6	5145.4	5670.7	8062.7
	4.0	3594.2	6850.4	3421.8	8086.1	3843.3	3429.1	4655.9	6236.9	4423.1	3158.7	2602.8	6241.8	4099.5	2303.0	4066.2	7583.8	4868.1	5084.3	2463.6	2464.1	6234.5
	5.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	4152.9
	6.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	4402.7
	7.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	4367.6
	8.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	4513.0
	9.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	4592.3
	10.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	4666.1
	11.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	4446.9
	12.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	4444.4
	13.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	4499.3
	14.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	4249.7
	15.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	4246.3
	16.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	4050.3
	17.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	4061.0
	18.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	3940.0
	19.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	4170.2
	20.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	5290.0
	21.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	5747.4
	22.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	5660.9
	23.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	5490.2
	24.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	5238.8
	25.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	4070.6
	26.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	3679.5
	27.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	3669.3
	28.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	4568.1
	29.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	4575.7
	30.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	4640.1
	31.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	4795.9
August	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	5756.4
	2.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	5712.5
	3.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	5902.8
	4.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	6048.3
	5.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	6383.5
	6.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	6254.3
	7.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	5925.5
	8.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	6239.9
	9.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	6299.9
	10.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	6772.6
	11.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	6609.9
	12.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	6868.1
	13.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	7269.6
	14.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	7555.4
	15.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	7325.3
	16.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	7226.1
	17.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	7183.5
	18.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	6900.8
	19.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	6799.6
	20.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	6589.4
	21.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	6605.1
	22.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	6745.6
	23.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	6592.7
	24.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	6554.2
	25.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	6592.8
	26.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	6899.2
	27.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	6743.6
	28.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	6780.6
	29.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	6738.5
	30.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	7286.3
	31.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	7246.5
Sept	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	5928.2
	2.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	4745.6
	3.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	3528.3
	4.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	2327.5
	5.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	882.9
	6.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	906.6
	7.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1246.4
	8.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1285.6
	9.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	744.4
	10.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	771.0
	11.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	850.9
	12.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	614.8
	13.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	646.7
	14.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	751.2
	15.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	774.5
	16.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	705.8
	17.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	575.6
	18.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	614.0
	19.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	567.9
	20.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	606.2
	21.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	597.8
	22.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	655.6
	23.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	600.6
	24.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	574.1
	25.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	475.4
	26.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	435.2
	27.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	361.8
	28.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	372.7
	29.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	462.3
	30.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	563.5
October	1.0	4259.9	3272.4	1274.7	2430.1	3273.7	2346.2	2726.6	3141.0	2970.8	2680.1	2215.1	2514.9	2800.8	4021.7	4261.7	3924.8	4683.2	5307.5	2577.1	4055.6	4101.2
	2.0	8192.3	5558.5	2534.9	5449.5	6668.0	4851.5	4878.1	5613.0	6049.1	4823.9	3833.3	6854.4	4717.5	7276.3	7890.5	10216.5	9948.9	10923.7	5910.1	8481.0	8430.5
	3.0	12283.0	7729.1	4227.3	8068.9	9758.1	6368.6	7122.4	8522.0	8661.6	7829.7	6224.2	11102.7	7169.3	10767.3	11647.5	17630.7	13191.1	15199.1	9063.6	11599.7	11256.9
Phil.
Reply to  RACookPE1978
October 4, 2018 5:28 pm

Now, please address the question: “What area of Arctic sea ice at latitude 60 north is “important”?
Is the “loss” of 1 sq kilometer of sea ice serious? Obviously not.
But the NSIDC maintains records to 0.001 sq kilometer.
Is the “loss” of 10 sq kilometers of sea ice serious? Obviously not.
But the NSIDC retains records of such sea ice values – unless they are between 01 August and 01 Sept. Then they delete them.
Is the “loss” of 100 sq kilometers of sea ice serious? Obviously not.

The daily data has certain inaccuracies, notably connected with the land/sea boundary, at later dates the data is reprocessed with a more accurate method . As you can see from the daily chart I showed, a few pixels show up where there is no ice, one pixel is 625 km^2, so the 4269.65 km^2 is about 7 pixels. However we know that the biggest single piece of that doesn’t exist, so when later processed it will be removed.

yet the total of all NH sea ice shelves is less than 500 sq kilometers – but THOSE are considered a vital indication of Arctic warming, and MUST be corrected to prevent future ice shelf loss. (At least according to the climate researchers who make their lives studying the northern hemisphere sea ice shelves off of Greenland and Canada.)
But the NSIDC retains records of those sea ice values below 100 sq kilometers – unless they are between 01 August and 01 Sept. Then they delete them.

Well ice shelves are rather thicker so constitute more ice than you would expect from their area. However they also serve a structural function which is very important. For example in 2002 a large fragment of the Ward Hunt ice shelf broke away, which exposed a lake that was dammed behind it and now it no longer exists exists. The fragments being fairly thick ice can take a long time to melt and can pose a threat to navigation for a couple of years. Not as bad as those in the antarctic though which are much bigger and longer lived.

Steve O
October 4, 2018 2:50 pm

The trend looks downward to me, with a possible bottoming out in recent years. That could indicate the beginning of an inflection point where the trend reverses, or it could simply be a change in the rate of decline. From the length of time shown, it’s hard to be emphatic. For anyone who was concerned about declining ice extent, that chart isn’t going to convince them to change their views.

One thing it does NOT show is an accelerating decline.

RoHa
October 4, 2018 11:30 pm

What is this “Meriiam-Webster” thing?

Here is the definition given in The One True Dictionary:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/spiral

Pixie
October 5, 2018 2:20 am

For we, the unscientific english speaking public, to spiral down evokes images of something falling from the sky … plummeting would be too strong a word… a spiral on the other may or may not have some control but can still evoke a high rate. Painting a picture… their propaganda machine is immense and targets the 60% who have no clue about anything and the 35% who might have a clue. That leaves you 5% who actually have clue.

Gamecock
October 5, 2018 10:47 am

‘This year’s sea ice minimum is the sixth lowest on record.’

Great! How many lives will this save?

%d bloggers like this: