Strong Arctic sea-ice growth this year

Guest Post by Javier

February is not over, and Arctic sea-ice extent is already over half a million square kilometers higher than last year at this day.

The growing season has not ended, and 2019 Arctic sea-ice extent is already higher than the previous four years and six out of the last 14 years.

 

Figure 1. Arctic sea-ice extent. Note the left edge of the graph is February 1, not January 1.  http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

Arctic sea-ice has stubbornly resisted the very warm years between 2015-2017 caused by the big El Niño. Are we going to see an increase in Arctic sea-ice over the next few years? Only time will tell, but the idea cannot be discarded.

Antarctic sea-ice is also growing this year with respect to last year, so global sea-ice extent is going to see an important jump this year.

Stay tuned for the March results but the “Arctic melting pause” is alive and kicking 12 years later. It started the year Al Gore said Arctic sea-ice was doomed. Talk about timing.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
285 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Trebla
February 24, 2019 11:59 am

While Al Gore makes a profit, he’s obviously not a prophet.

Richard
Reply to  Trebla
February 24, 2019 1:07 pm

How utterly inconvenient of the climate not to obey king “Big Al” Canute.

Jim Patren
Reply to  Richard
February 24, 2019 3:49 pm

One of the best climate scientist I’ve followed for 20 years is Dr Don Easterbrook, Geologist Emeritus at WWU with 45 years experience. He was the first to determine with accuracy from ice cores, that the Earth goes thru warm and cool cycles approx every 30 years. He also predicted in 1998, that the Pacific would change from a warm current to a cold current, validated by satellite. He also believes this cool cycle we’re in may last until 2050 with a Grand Minimum. He was called “The Scientist That Got It Right” in 2005. Over 30,000 actual climate related scientists have signed off on his research. He has UTube videos and his website is excellent. He explains CO2 quite well – it trails all other atmospheric gases for warming our climate and has zero affect on it.

Geoff
Reply to  Trebla
February 24, 2019 4:10 pm

Fastest way to “grow” sea ice is spray hydrophilic film on arctic/antarctic water surface. It will ice up rapidly. Paper is perfect. A non polar gas will worrk as well.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  Trebla
February 24, 2019 8:34 pm

Rumor is that Al Gore is busy doing revisions to old videos and an old book, to reflect an “updated understanding” of climate change.

I hear that the phrase “The fever has resulted in Earth catching a cold” will be featured prominently.

Could be another Nobel Peace prize for Al if sales are brisk.

Hivemind
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
February 24, 2019 11:38 pm

Nobel piece prize?

Javert Chip
Reply to  Trebla
February 24, 2019 8:47 pm

Given Al’s a prior customer of a “rub & tug” establishment, I’m kinda hoping he might have a few words to say about the recent Florida kerfuffle.

You know, something like “just trying to give a couple billionaire a helping hand…”.

boffin77
Reply to  Trebla
February 24, 2019 10:34 pm

The decline in Arctic ice shown on some graphs is largely due to loss of ice in the Barents Sea – perhaps due to the Gulf Stream pushing up further.
The Canadian Arctic has been back to normal for a few years
The Great Lakes are more frozen than usual this year – as illustrated by this histogram from Canadian Ice Services showing lake ice vs week of the year. The green line shows the average over 30 years starting in 1980. https://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/CVCSWCTGL/20190218180000_CVCSWCTGL_0010461467.pdf

Similar “early” freeze-ups (actually bank-to-normal freeze-ups) occurred farther north.

Summer breakup has become unreliable, which is why there are no more scheduled very large cruise ships.

Mike Brown
Reply to  boffin77
February 27, 2019 10:08 am

The only time all 5 Great Lakes froze solid in modern history was 1979. Bet that would mess up there 30 year ice record.

John Tillman
February 24, 2019 12:04 pm

Summer sea ice minimum has been growing since 2012, and flat since 2007. No new, lower low has been registered since 2012, despite the 2015-16 super El Nino, and two late summer cyclones in 2016. The other low years of 2007 and 2012 also saw August cyclones, which pile up and spread out the floes, reducing the area with 15% ice coverage.

From 1979 to 2012, a new, lower low was recorded within at least every five years. Last year was the sixth summer since the record low.

David Dirkse
Reply to  John Tillman
February 24, 2019 12:27 pm

“Summer sea ice minimum has been growing since 2012”

Nice cherry you picked Tillman…..2012 sea ice minimum is the lowest in the entire satellite record.

2018 minimum was more than 2 standard deviations below average.
2017 minimum was more than 2 standard deviations below average.
2016 minimum was more than 2 standard deviations below average.
2015 minimum was more than 2 standard deviations below average.
2014 minimum was 2 standard deviations below average.
2013 minimum was 2 standard deviations below average.

See any pattern here?

John Tillman
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 12:35 pm

Yes. The pattern is that Arctic sea ice bottomed in 2012. No cherry pick. Just the fact. So far.

Of course we’re still below the 1981-2010 baseline. The dedicated satellite observations started when Arctic sea ice was at or near its high for the century, ie 1979. So of course the baseline is higher than now.

But Arctic sea ice fluctuates naturally in about a 30-year cycle. Its average was as low as now during the 1930s and ’40s, then more extensive during the 1960s and ’70s (although there were some lower years then, too).

R Shearer
Reply to  John Tillman
February 24, 2019 12:42 pm

The maximum extent in 1974 was 14.4 million km sq according to Parkinson:
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 94, NO. C10, PAGES 14,499-14,523, OCTOBER 15, 1989

David Dirkse
Reply to  John Tillman
February 24, 2019 12:43 pm

“The dedicated satellite observations started when Arctic sea ice was at or near its high for the century,”

Nope.

You can’t say that, because you are mixing apples (satellites) with oranges (land based obs)

PS, it’s a “cherry pick” because you are using the lowest minimum as a comparison point.

For example, the most recent time the minimum was at or above the average was 2001. That’s over 15 years ago. What is probability of getting all heads when tossing a coin 15 times?

John Tillman
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 1:06 pm

Using the record lowest minimum to establish a trend is not a cherry pick. When and if there should be a lower low, then the trend would have been broken or possibly reversed. But for now, as noted, the trend is flat since 2007 and up since 2012. Also as noted, from 1979 to 2012, there was a new low at least every five years. It has now been six years since the record low.

If we used the same means of mapping sea ice extent now as in 1939, the result would be the same.

During WWII, the Northern Sea Route along Siberia was open in the summer, as it is now. But after WWII, it was closed. Which is why the USSR built nuclear-powered ice breakers to keep it open.

That 1979 was near the high is visible in satellite data from before the dedicated record, as well as in sea ice extent maps. The PDO flip year of 1977 was probably the high.

We can be sure that CO2 has no discernible effect on sea ice extent, since Antarctic sea ice grew from 1979 to its peak year of 2014, while Arctic sea ice declined from 1979 to 2012. Yet CO2 is supposedly well mixed.

Similarly, there has been no warming at the South Pole since records were kept there, yet that’s exactly where the effect of a fourth molecule of plant food per 10,000 dry air molecules should be the greatest, due to the dryness of the air there.

John Tillman
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 1:08 pm

It’s not a matter of probability. It’s a trend in a natural cycle, which apparently has reversed, as such trends do.

In 2021, a new 30-year baseline will be used, lower than the current one, which includes the high years of the ’80s.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 1:16 pm

So you’re suggesting annual Arctic sea ice minimums are an independent event? Is that out of convenience or stupidity?

David Dirkse
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 1:20 pm

“Using the record lowest minimum to establish a trend is not a cherry pick.”

Yes it is. You also forget that 6 years of data doesn’t establish a “trend” when we have almost 40 years of satellite data. The fact is that the past 6 years of “minimums” have ALL been not only below the 30 year average, they have been 2 standard deviations below said average.

David Dirkse
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 1:21 pm

“If we used the same means of mapping sea ice extent now as in 1939, the result would be the same.”

Citation for this ridiculous claim?

David Dirkse
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 1:24 pm

“Antarctic sea ice grew from 1979 to its peak year of 2014, while Arctic sea ice declined from 1979 to 2012.”

STRAWMAN ALERT!!!!

STRAWMAN ALERT!!!!

Arctic ice is floating on water, Antarctic ice is land bound.

David Dirkse
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 1:27 pm

Tillman says: “It’s not a matter of probability. ”

Actually, you cannot calculate a “trend” without the use of probability and statistics. Trend calculations contain error bands, which are based on probability.

MarkW
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 1:53 pm

“That’s over 15 years ago. What is probability of getting all heads when tossing a coin 15 times?”

Like most alarmists, David understands neither statistics nor science.

MarkW
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 1:54 pm

Of the many things that David is ignorant of, one is the fact that there are huge sheets of floating ice surrounding Antarctica.

Ernest Bush
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 1:55 pm

@David Dirkse – Tillman explicitly stated Antarctic SEA Ice. Read it again

Roger Knights
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 1:56 pm

“STRAWMAN ALERT!!!! …Arctic ice is floating on water, Antarctic ice is land bound.”

There are three types of ice in Antarctica: land-based, shelf-ice (floating but attched to a land-based glacier), and sea ice. Antarctic sea is too floating on water.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 1:58 pm

David tell me you are not a little bit surprised (disappointed?) That the low was 6yrs ago. Think back what your expectations were for the status of arctic ice extent by 2020. See!

In a galloping warming world with 12 yrs left to mass extinction from heat exhaustion, growth of Arctic ice above such a low 6yrs ago, wouldn’t be possible. Maybe, on some level we are in agreement here if you see global warming to not overpower natural variation. Your investment of time in WUWT hasnt berj entirely wasted, then.

John Tillman
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 2:07 pm

David,

NSIDC disagrees with you. Its staff combines pre-satellite observations with satellite:

comment image

“Satellite data from the SMMR and SSM/I instruments have been combined with earlier observations from ice charts and other sources to yield a time series of Arctic ice extent from the early 1900s onward. While the pre-satellite records are not as reliable, their trends are in good general agreement with the satellite record…”

Error bars on a linear regression or other trend analysis is not the same as standard deviation from a baseline. As noted, we’ll soon have a new baseline, and Arctic sea ice will be within one SD of it and eventually above the line, if, as is likely, the uptrend continues.

But you don’t even need to draw a trend line. Just compare the average summer minimum for 2007-12 with that for 2013-18. The past six years have averaged higher than the prior six years, despite a super El Nino. Statistical significance is hard to come by with only 40 data points, but the fact remains that no other six year interval since 1979 has been higher than the previous such period.

Clearly, steadily rising CO2 since 1945 has had no measurrable effect. During that time, Arctic sea ice grew, then fell and is now growing again.

MikeP
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 2:09 pm

What’s the probability that the temperature in February will be below average? After all it will have been perhaps 100+ days since it was above average …

David Dirkse
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 2:15 pm

1) MarkW……If Arctic sea ice was not in decline, in the past 15 years, some years the extent would be above average, and some would be below average. The fact is that in the past 15 years EVERY year was below average. The probability of that happening is equal to tossing a coin 15 times and getting heads on each and every toss. My best guess is that you are ignorant of basic probability, never mind understanding rudimentary statistics.
..
2) One of the facts that MarkW is not aware of is that a satellite cannot distinguish between ice that is over water or over land

3) Bush: see item number 2

4) Knights: see item number 2

5) Pearse: I have no expectations for 2020

David Dirkse
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 2:23 pm

Tillman posted: “The dedicated satellite observations started when Arctic sea ice was at or near its high for the century”
..
Subsequently Tillman posted a graphiccomment image

Note the graphic starts in 1953, so please Mr. Tillman, how can you claim that 1979 was the high for the century? In order for you to do this, you would need to post data from 1900 thru the present to make such a claim.

David Dirkse
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 2:27 pm

“Statistical significance is hard to come by with only 40 data points”
..
..
..
BINGO
..
..
Thank you very much Mr. Tillman.

John Tillman
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 2:28 pm

David,

Even NOAA admits that Antarctic SEA ice remains in an uptrend, despite the freakish low year of 2017, from 2016 WX events associated with the 2016 super El Nino.

Dr Deanster
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 2:34 pm

Actually David, the odds are pretty good. I remember one time I was playing Roulette , kept betting black ….. it just kept hitting red …. I lost my ass.

Ya gotta remember, there is no cumulative probability in a coin toss. …. it is 50/50 for each toss. …. and that is all.

Greg
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 2:35 pm

What is probability of getting all heads when tossing a coin 15 times?

Are you aware of the meaning of AUTOCORRELATION ? Sea ice is not a coin toss. Neither is OHC or temperature. If sea ice is low this year there is a good chance it will a little higher or a little lower next year. It is not a coin flip that can revert to 1983 levels in one toss.

It is a interesting after the warmest decade “in recorded history” that minimum Arctic sea ice area/extent has been increasing for the last 6 years. Also the ice volume.

So much for the supposed “death spiral” , positive feedbacks and “tipping points” all driven by wicked CO2 .

Remember when we were told that the Arctic was the “canary in the coal mine”. Well the canary is doing fine. The main point of having a canary in a coal mine is keep checking on its condition and heave a sigh of relief when it is not dead.

Climate alarmists just cuss quietly and go to find a new canary to talk about.

David Dirkse
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 2:40 pm

Dr Deanster: “the odds are pretty good”
..
..
1/32768 = 0.0000305
..
..
ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 2:43 pm

“…If Arctic sea ice was not in decline, in the past 15 years, some years the extent would be above average, and some would be below average. The fact is that in the past 15 years EVERY year was below average. The probability of that happening is equal to tossing a coin 15 times and getting heads on each and every toss. My best guess is that you are ignorant of basic probability, never mind understanding rudimentary statistics…”

NO. This is basic stuff.

The coin flip analogue implies that the extent is independent from one year to another…that’s not the case. The sea ice in a given year is dependent on the starting point.

The heads-and-tails analogue works for sea ice going up-and-down from year-to-year. Did minimum sea ice go down without exception every single year for 15 straight years (e.g., heads when tossing the coin 15 times)? NO.

After 2001, it went up in 2003, 2009, 2013, and 2014…and 2017 as well .

Still down more years than up, and of course the magnitude changes from year-to-year (which is another problem with your failed attempt at the coin toss analogy…it doesn’t account for that).

Has the sea ice minimum been in a decline since 2001? Yes, a basic look at a chart makes that clear. Your failed analogy does nothing but make it clear that you need remedial work in probability.

David Dirkse
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 2:44 pm

Greg says: ” Sea ice is not a coin toss. ”

True, but tell me, what type of probability distribution allows the minimum to be lower than the average 15 years in a row not to mention that the past 6 years have ALL been 2 standard deviations below that average?

David Dirkse
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 2:54 pm

Jankowski, the heads-and-tails analogue works for sea ice going up-and-down from year-to-year IF THERE WAS NO UNDERLYING TREND.

The basic null hypothesis which is “There is no downward trend” is proven FALSE by observational data.

You confuse “going down” with being “below average.”

I don’t need remedial work in probability, the observational data clearly shows that Arctic sea ice extent is going down, has been since the advent of the satellite era, and six years doesn’t negate this downward trend.

Greg
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 2:55 pm

The majority of the change in Arctic sea ice happened between 1997 and 2007. That was supposed to be enough to decide we must change the way we run the planet and revert to a subsistence lifestyle and serfdom.

http://www.addletters.com/pictures/bart-simpson-generator/bart-simpson-generator.php?line=ten+years+does+make+a+trend

Sea ice is now at the same level is was in 2007.
http://www.addletters.com/pictures/bart-simpson-generator/bart-simpson-generator.php?line=ten+years+does+NOT+make+a+trend

Greg
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 2:57 pm

It’s not a probability distribution, it’s a cycle.

MarkW
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 3:00 pm

David, David, David
The satellites don’t need to tell the difference between sea ice and land ice. That’s what maps are for. Perhaps you’ve heard of them. They are these new inventions that researchers can use to tell where the land is and where the sea is. That way they can plot the data from their satellites and figure out what ice is on land and what ice is on water.

Regardless: Quite moving the freaking goal posts. You are the one who claimed that all Antarctic ice is land bound.

MarkW
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 3:02 pm

David, imagine a sine wave with noise. That’s what the arctic is doing.
The fact that ice is currently lower than the highest point in the last 100 years may impress you …

Greg
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 3:05 pm

What you have here is one of those “accelerating cosines”.
comment image
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/warming-cosine/

If you take a snip out of a cyclic series, you will have a “trend” even if the cycle is mean zero.

The whole AGW panic is based on concentrating on the rising part of a cycle and ignoring the rest.

David Dirkse
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 3:10 pm
David Dirkse
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 3:15 pm

MarkW: “The fact that ice is currently lower than the highest point in the last 100 years ”

We do not have 100 years of satellite data.

..
Are you grafting non-satellite data with satellite data? Seems to me that that type of data-grafting is not appreciated on this blog. (aka hockey stick or Marcott)

Greg Freemyer
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 3:17 pm

Re: Greg says: ” Sea ice is not a coin toss. ”

True, but tell me, what type of probability distribution allows the minimum to be lower than the average 15 years in a row not to mention that the past 6 years have ALL been 2 standard deviations below that average?
————-
A 80 year cycle with an added noise component.

There are numerous global series with a 70-90 year quasi-stable cycle.

There is good reason to think Arctic sea ice extent is one of those. If so, a peak ice extent in 1975 decreasing to 2012 then bottoming out to start increasing would be fully expected. And the next peak should be around 2050-2060.

David Dirkse
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 3:20 pm

Greg: “If you take a snip out of a cyclic series”

You have no proof of any type of cyclic series with regard to Arctic sea ice extent.
..
Please post your data that shows Arctic sea ice extent is cyclic.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 3:20 pm

“…Jankowski, the heads-and-tails analogue works for sea ice going up-and-down from year-to-year IF THERE WAS NO UNDERLYING TREND…”

So…if it had dropped 1.5 sq km in year 1 then risen 0.1 sq km each year for the next 14 yrs…it is still a net loss of 0.1 sq km overall, and it never reached the value in year 0. In your world of probabilistic incompetence, this is analogous to heads turning-up all 15 times.

Let’s extend this ridiculous notion of yours even further…the minimum extent has been higher than 2007 for all years since except for 1. So while you want to start in 2001 and calculate the odds of 15 heads, how about the odds of getting 10 tails to 1 head since 2007. Sounds like the coin needs to land on its side for several years.

David Dirkse
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 3:24 pm

Greg Freemyer please show me the data for an 80-year Arctic sea ice extent cycle.
..
..
Thank you in advance.

John Tillman
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 3:26 pm

Daivd,

As I’ve already pointed out, the US government does the grafting.

But also, you don’t need a graph to know that Arctic sea ice fell during the 1920s to ’40s, grew from then until the late ’70s, then fell again after that. And is now growing again. Historical documents and proxy data confirm these facts.

Besides which, even today’s ice extent, down from the LIA, is still higher than for most of the Holocene and prior interglacials. Forty years isn’t much to go for analysis of climate change.

John Tillman
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 3:31 pm

David,

How many years do we have to go without a new record low before you accept the reality that Arctic sea ice cycles naturally, and that rising CO2 has negligible effect on these fluctuations?

It has been six years. Ten? Twenty? Forty? If we get a lower low in 60 years, that would just show the natural cycle during a natural warming interval, like the Medieval, Roman and Minoan Warm Periods and Holocene Optimum.

David Dirkse
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 3:33 pm

Jankowski asks about probabilistic incompetence.
….
The simple fact of the matter, irrespective of your inability to understand basic statistics, is that the Arctic sea ice extent has not been at, or above it’s 30 year average value since 2001.
..
I challenge you to provide a realistic probability distribution that would explain this.

If you cannot, then you apparently are incompetent in basic probability theory.

David Dirkse
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 3:38 pm

Tillman says: “Arctic sea ice cycles naturally.”


Tillman provides no evidence for this assertion.

Please provide a link to your evidence to support this assertion.
..
Thank you.

David Dirkse
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 3:40 pm

Tillman says: “you don’t need a graph to know that Arctic sea ice fell during the 1920s to ’40s”

I need data.

Show me your data for evidence of this assertion.

They didn’t have satellites in the 1920’s or the 40’s.

David Dirkse
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 3:45 pm

Tillman: “How many years do we have to go without a new record low before you accept the reality that Arctic sea ice cycles naturally?”

I need to see any/all your data that shows it cycles PERIOD.

Phil R
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 4:09 pm

David Dickes,

Were you trolling on some previous threads under a different name?

Rich Davis
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 4:32 pm

Why are you being so disagreeably obtuse David? You say that you had no expectations for sea ice extent in 2020, back in 2012. I’m happy to take you at your word on that. You may not have been crowing about the imminent end of Arctic ice, but certainly Al Gore and his acolytes were doing so. If I’m not mistaken, the claim was that sea ice would be completely gone during summer by 2014.

It would be decent of you to simply acknowledge that Gore was wrong. You can do that without “compromising” on the fact that the linear trend since 1979 is still negative, which I believe everybody here has acknowledged.

If Javier is right that we are looking at a cyclical trend that is about 60-years peak-to-peak, then it is to be expected that there would be a negative trend that would be leveling off and beginning to advance. You do not need to endorse his theory in order to acknowledge that his theory is consistent with the data so far.

Can you do those two things, and earn our respect as an intellectually honest person, or do you intend to demonstrate that you’re not reasonable?

David Dirkse
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 4:51 pm

Rich Davis, nobody can verify that Javier is correct about a 60 year cycle. We do not have 60 years worth of satellite data, and you cannot splice non-satellite data with satellite data to show any type of cycle of more than 40 years. There is not enough data to validate his supposed “theory.”

Only data we have shows that Arctic sea ice extent has been in decline since the start of satellite measurements.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 5:24 pm

“…Arctic ice is floating on water, Antarctic ice is land bound…”

Well Mr. Dirkse, NOAA’s National Sea Ice Data Center has measured non-existent Antarctic sea ice since 1979 to the tune of millions of square kilometers daily…up to around 18 million at peaks.

How many head flips in a row would be the equivalent of there actually being zero Antarctic sea ice?

MarkW
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 6:38 pm

David, David, David. If you were half as smart as you keep telling us you are, you would know that satellites aren’t the only way that the ice extent can be measured.

David Dirkse
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 6:47 pm

” satellites aren’t the only way that the ice extent can be measured. “
..
LOL

They are the best way to measure it as they have the best coverage.

Menicholas
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 25, 2019 12:45 am

As I recall, the loudest voices were saying there would be a feedback effect, and the lower the amount of sea ice, the faster it would decline, and nothing could prevent it.
And as a consequence of albedo effects, in the end it would all just melt away very suddenly.
The idea that it is a coin toss is dumb. There is every indication that sea ice varies in the Arctic varies with the AMO.
Sic years after the 2012 low, and the ice is now back to level seen well before 2012.
It is February, and ice is growing.
And as for cherry picking, how about the alarmista focusing on volume when volume gave the largest decline, thickness when thickness gave the largest decline, and extent when extent gave the largest decline.
Extend is not the same as amount of ice.
It has more to do with winds, as the wind can spread the ice out of compact it together.
And lets not forget the dire warnings about multi year ice, which the alarmista said would never reappear once it melted or was broken up.
Well, thick multi year ice is now increased far above levels of 2012.
There are now huge areas of ice over 4 meters thick! Some ice may be as much as 15-20 feet thick.
Last Summer an ice breaker had to turn back after encountering the worst conditions in many year near the pole, and it could not get through it…and that was late Summer!
In any case, what the hell is so great about a frozen wasteland that blocks shipping?
And what is scary about a somewhat less frigidly icebound polar ocean?
It is a frozen hell up there. The sun will not even rise on the pole for another month, after 5 solid months of not one ray of Sunshine. And when it does rise, it will barely break the horizon and circle the sky slightly over the horizon for a long time, giving light but little if any warmth. Which is why greatest ice coverage and volume keeps increasing for many weeks even after the equinox.
Everyone is sick of the crocodile tears and mock hand wringing of alarmists.
The fact is nothing will upset David worse than increasing ice, as he so amply reminds us here, ad nauseum.
Give it a rest…in a few years you will be completely discredited.
Arctic ice will be gaining, and instead of happy the gloomy doomsday forecast of a milder Arctic wasteland will be proven wrong, and the people that said it was a looming disaster will be gloomier than ever.

Sylvia
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 25, 2019 1:35 am

I’ve never seen a more pathetic attempt at dissembling.

You are totally missing the point.

The ice is meant to be DECREASING. It has been INCREASING consistently from its low, which was below ‘average’. There has been an INCREMENTAL GROWTH as we move forward in time, back TOWARDS the average. You can’t expect ALL the ice lost over the last decades to reappear in one season!

It’s not a coin toss. The conditions under which the ice is being measured are not static! The factor supposedly leading to ice loss – more CO2 – has INCREASED. So why is ice moving in the opposite direction? Ice loss should be ACCELERATING.

NASA itself has pushed out its ice free prediction to the END OF THE CENTURY due to the slowing decline of the ice. ‘Slowing decline’ is Doublespeak for ‘increasing’ ice or stasis.

Why are you so desperate for calamity?

David Guy-Johnson
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 25, 2019 3:50 am

Dirkse, All you are doing is showing that you do not understand what “cherry pick” means

Editor
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 25, 2019 6:28 am

David Dirkse,

Several times now YOU have been told the decline stopped after 2007, despite numerous prediction by scientists that there would be NO Summer ice by 2008, 2013, 2015, 2018 and so on. Since they have been chronically wrong, why continue to resist the evidence?

http://notrickszone.com/2018/07/21/charlatans-of-the-arctic-laughing-stock-ice-free-arctic-predictions-fake-science-at-its-best/

Meanwhile there have been several published papers showing similar lows back in the 1920-1930’s:

Another New Paper Shows Arctic Sea Ice Has Been INCREASING Overall Since The 1930s

The late 1970’s was indeed a high point of Arctic sea ice in the 20th century.

Robert of Texas
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 25, 2019 10:13 am

” David Dirkse February 24, 2019 at 2:15 pm
1) MarkW……If Arctic sea ice was not in decline, in the past 15 years, some years the extent would be above average, and some would be below average. The fact is that in the past 15 years EVERY year was below average. The probability of that happening is equal to tossing a coin 15 times and getting heads on each and every toss. ”

David, with respect,

The probability you use only works if the “odds” are equal and stable, and this presumes that your average is correct for a larger sample size. If your original average is taken over a small sample size, and the points are following a trend, then that average is not valid over a larger sample size. In the case you present, you say the odds of “ice extent” should be like a coin toss, but it shouldn’t. The average you use is very likely to be biased to the range you compute it from and not reflective of a larger sample that is trending or even changing to a new trend.

I don’t know if sea ice extent is going to continue to decrease or start increasing – that is what patience and observational data are for. But I would not bet money that all of the observed sea ice decrease were directly caused by CO2 in the atmosphere. I suspect there is a natural cycle and it will make itself known given a long enough time. We will likely see the decrease slow down, or pause, or reverse given that there is very likely a natural cycle involved. If it reverses (which will become clear given enough observations), that will be another nail in the coffin of catastrophic CO2-induced warming.

Bill_W_1984
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 25, 2019 10:18 am

When most newspapers and networks and many climate scientists and activists cherry pick things like this all the time (for example droughts, high temperatures, and wildfires using the 70’s as their start), can you blame people for thinking that’s the way it’s supposed to be done? 🙂

Ve2
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 25, 2019 2:25 pm

Warmer in 1922, unless all involved, scientists, seamen and newspapers were global warming deniers.

https://reason.com/blog/2011/04/01/arctic-sea-ice-a-climate-chang

John Tillman
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 26, 2019 10:02 am

David,

You’ve been shown repeatedly that Arctic sea ice is cyclic. Do you really imagine that it was unchanging before AD 1979?

It has been reconstructed from proxy data for centuries and millennia, if not longer intervals. Here is a fairly short reconstruction:

https://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/176002.php

Note that the authors attach satellite observations to the end, however warranted or un- that might be:

https://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/176002.php

Here’s a longer series:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christophe_Kinnard/publication/51825483_Reconstructed_changes_in_Arctic_sea_ice_over_the_past_1450_years/links/0912f5114f04342a57000000.pdf

Please note the ups and downs, aka cycles.

For most of the Holocene Interglacial, thanks to its long Climate Optimum before c. 5200 years ago, and subsequent balmy intervals such as the Egyptian, Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, Arctic sea ice extent has been less than now.

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 27, 2019 9:53 am

I we consider a cycle cos(2πft) where f is 1/30 to give a 30 year cycle, you will find that the average of the six “annual” points around the minima is -0.937. DOes that help you to understand a little better?

Ray in SC
Reply to  John Tillman
February 24, 2019 3:51 pm

Everyone, do us all a favor and don’t feed the troll.

David Dirkse
Reply to  Ray in SC
February 24, 2019 3:54 pm

Wazzzamatta Ray, can’t deal with facts?

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Ray in SC
February 24, 2019 4:34 pm

Ray in SC,
Okay, but can I add this:
From: http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm

John died, but someone has kept his site up, may be Jeff Id, but I’ve forgotten.

LONG POST WITH PHOTOS submarines and ice; note the date at the end here.

“It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.

(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.”
President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817 [13]

*13 President of the Royal Society, Minutes of Council,
Volume 8. pp.149-153, Royal Society, London.
20th November, 1817.

Javier
Reply to  Ray in SC
February 24, 2019 6:23 pm

Everyone, do us all a favor and don’t feed the troll.

Why not? He is driving the comment count through the roof. That makes the article go to the top post list. He is actually making it more relevant.

Trolls aren’t known for thinking things. Just for having a lot of disposable time.

David Dirkse
Reply to  Ray in SC
February 24, 2019 6:28 pm

Javier, if you cannot deal with someone that has facts backing up his arguments, please go away. Calling me a “troll” and not confronting my facts makes you look weak.
….
Hultquist one picture of a submarine proves what?

MarkW
Reply to  Ray in SC
February 24, 2019 6:40 pm

David, is that what you call the nonsense you’ve been trolling?

Javier
Reply to  Ray in SC
February 24, 2019 6:42 pm

Heck, you got some nerve, asking me to go away from my own article.

I am not impressed by your supposed facts. Your knowledge of the issue appears quite superficial.

Phil.
Reply to  Ray in SC
February 24, 2019 7:00 pm

“(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.”

Unfortunately the Royal Navy expedition dispatched to Spitzbergen six months after found this not to be the case.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Ray in SC
February 25, 2019 6:24 pm

@Phil;
Do you suppose the general conditions might have changed after 30 years, or were you expecting climate stasis from 1818 to 1848?

Prjindigo
Reply to  John Tillman
February 24, 2019 9:48 pm

Don’t expect warmists to understand math and statistics. If they did they’d see right through their paper-thin religion.

John Tillman
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 12:37 pm

Or 60 years from peak to peak or trough to trough, rather than from peak to trough.

William Astley
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 1:47 pm

Yes. The decline in Arctic sea ice stopped. The Arctic sea ice coverage is now increasing.

The cult of CAGW ignored the fact that the Arctic sea changes cyclically. The past decreases and increase in Arctic sea obviously were not caused by changes in atmospheric CO2.

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Arctic-sea-ice-extent-1900-2017.png

Sceptical
Reply to  William Astley
February 24, 2019 7:10 pm

Looks like it has been declining since 2014.

John Tillman
Reply to  Sceptical
February 26, 2019 2:56 pm

The 2012 low caused so much open water to lose heat that 2013 and 2014 rebounded strongly, despite steadily rising CO2 and allegedly global average air T.

But the growing trend was so strong that even during the El Nino years of 2015 and 2016, which latter suffered two late summer cyclones, no new low record was set.

Thus confirming the reversal of downtrend, just as students of the history of Arctic sea ice predicted.

MarkW
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 1:50 pm

If the theory of AGW had any validity, the ice should have kept shrinking, setting new lows every year.
2012 was also the year of several huge late autumn storms that broke up sea the sea ice.

MarkW
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 1:51 pm

PS, the satellite era began with some of the highest sea ice in a century. So you are also guilty of cherry picking.

barry
Reply to  MarkW
February 26, 2019 2:05 pm

“If the theory of AGW had any validity, the ice should have kept shrinking, setting new lows every year.”

Weather conditions have quite a strong influence on annual extent, as noted by several above and below. Annual fluctuations that are larger than a multidecadal trend are normal. What would be very odd is seeing monotonous year-on-year change in one direction with no ups and downs. If that were the case for Arctic sea ice, you could be sure that the data was being fudged.

“PS, the satellite era began with some of the highest sea ice in a century.”

You really should provided something to back that up.

comment image
comment image
http://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Walsh-et-al.-2016-Fig8.png

The first graph is from NSIDC, mentioned above, the second from the old Cryosphere Today website (now defunct, I believe), and the third with various sources detailed here.

Always cite your sources, if you can.

Javier
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 1:54 pm

See any pattern here?

I think you are missing the main point. We were told 12 years ago that the Arctic was melting so fast that we were in real danger of loosing Arctic summer sea-ice in just a few years. That message was based on expert assessment of polar climate.

12 years later there is the same sea-ice extent. Either we were lied or the experts weren’t so, or both.

And that is the problem with climate change. There aren’t experts on it. And we are asked to make fundamental changes to our economy and our energy production system based on bad assessment.

There should be a pause in climate change policies until we have a better understanding and some real experts that know what they talk about. Meanwhile we can put all that people in climate change to a better use. Perhaps they could generate electricity by pedalling on a pedal-power generator. Right now all they eat is wasted.

michael hart
Reply to  Javier
February 24, 2019 2:37 pm

“There should be a pause in climate change policies until we have a better understanding and some real experts that know what they talk about.”

But where are we going to get those people from? Most of the real climate scientists are ageing, retired, or hounded out. We are left with a generation of C-grade sycophants with their snouts in the global warming trough. Worse still, it has already contaminated the rest of publicly-funded science and will probably take at least another generation to correct.

R2DToo
Reply to  michael hart
February 24, 2019 10:35 pm

If someone were to reassign funding priorities from CO2 induced global warming and the current models to ocean dynamics, emergent phenomena, solar radiation effects, land use climatic effects etc., many of the current “climate scientists” would become experts overnight. There are thousands of “climate scientists” working in government, universities and institutes (centres of excellence!) that need big government money to pay the rent.

Ray in SC
Reply to  Javier
February 24, 2019 3:01 pm

Javier,
Well said Sir!

David Dirkse
Reply to  Javier
February 24, 2019 4:57 pm

Javier, please stop confounding past predictions with current data.
..
Arctic sea ice decline has not reversed course since the advent of satellite measurements.

Get with the program. The past six years have ALL been 2 standard deviations below the 30 year average.

Javier
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 5:31 pm

That has an easy solution, David Dirkse. They will not be 2 standard deviations below the 30 year average when the 30 year average is 1991-2020.

Stop hyperventilating about a question of baselines.

David Dirkse
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 5:39 pm

LOL @ Javier…….so instead of it being 2 standard deviations below the average, when they change the baseline, it will be one.

How long will we have to wait before the minimum hits the average of the new baseline?

Ignoring the long term trend makes you look foolish.

Javier
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 6:10 pm

Ignoring the long term trend makes you look foolish.

You appear to ignore that the long term trend does not contain information about what comes next. Extrapolating linear trends is the really foolish activity.

The fact that the ice melts more or less while the planet warms is a trivial observation. That is what well-behaved ice should do during a period of warming, doh!

The important thing is to know what drives sea-ice to melt more at certain times than others and what relationship that has with other climatic phenomena. It is clear that if we can’t predict how the sea-ice melts we don’t understand it. The so much talked about albedo effect that should accelerate the melting is a weak effect, since the ice hasn’t melted in 12 years.

And I particularly fail to understand what is so worrisome about the sea-ice melting. For all we know the planet might cool better without it, since during the dark winters it separates the relatively warm ocean from the very cold atmosphere limiting heat loss.

David Dirkse
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 6:23 pm

1) “The important thing is to know what drives sea-ice to melt”……..Answer: warmer temperatures.
..
2) ” since the ice hasn’t melted in 12 years.”…… WRONG 2012 (the lowest minimum) happened within the past 12 years
..
3) “he planet might cool better ” ……..except the data shows this isn’t happening.

Again, you are ignoring the fact that the Arctic sea ice is in decline.,

Javier
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 6:39 pm

Answer: warmer temperatures.

Wrong answer. 2015-2018 warmest years = no further melting.

WRONG 2012 (the lowest minimum) happened within the past 12 years

Yet we have more ice than 12 years ago so no melting. Or if you prefer it melting and then refreezing.

except the data shows this isn’t happening.

The planet has cooled very efficiently since February 2016, and considering the little warming since 2002 I would dare to say that the data does not refute the hypothesis. The pause in Arctic sea-ice since 2007 at very low levels more or less coincides with a period of little warming except for a big El Niño that was efficiently cooled down.

you are ignoring the fact that the Arctic sea ice is in decline.

Hell no, I even have my own model on how Arctic melting should proceed:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/100517_1140_arcticicena6.png
So far is doing better than official models.

It is from my previous article on Arctic sea ice. You would learn a great deal by reading it.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/05/arctic-ice-natural-variability/

David Dirkse
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 7:00 pm

“considering the little warming since 2002” ………wow…so if it hasn’t been warming since 2002, why was the Arctic extent the lowest on record in 2012?

“The pause in Arctic sea-ice since 2007” …….. wow… so if it paused in 2007, why was the Arctic extent the lowest on record in 2012?

“I even have my own model” ………you have a GIGO model? I like real data, throw your model in the nearest trash can.

Nothing you say can refute the fact that Arctic sea ice extent is in decline, and has been since the advent of satellite monitoring.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 7:08 pm

David, look up the 1990 ICC Report. It shows the early 1970’s to be about the same as we are now. That is before the IPCC cut the pre 1979 data to show we are declining. Perfect scene for the followers like David.

Javier
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 25, 2019 2:17 am

why was the Arctic extent the lowest on record in 2012?

I thought you were the one that had the data. 2012 had really unusual Arctic weather during spring and summer, so the answer to your question is weather, not climate.

I like real data

Good boy. Then you can ignore everything the IPCC says, as it is all model-based.

Nothing you say can refute the fact that Arctic sea ice extent is in decline

Arctic sea ice extent was in decline. Something that hasn’t declined in 12 years is not in in decline. Is stable.

Gordon Lehman
Reply to  Javier
February 25, 2019 9:21 am

Perfect, even requiring them to pedal enough to keep their screens lit would show good faith effort to their cause, and be an important lesson in energy reality.

Jamie
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 4:36 pm

David.

I don’t think that’s possible. 2 standard deviations is about 5 percent of measurements. There were only 40 measurements. Ie years. That means only about 2 years could be at 2 or greater standard deviations.

marque2
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 4:45 pm

Yeah, and 2019 also looks to be two standard deviations below average as well, and not as high at this stage as the infamous 2012 minimum year.

Rich Davis
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 5:05 pm

I did not ask you to verify Javier’s theory. I specifically specified that you should not need to endorse the theory in order to say that the data we have in the 40 years since 1979 is consistent with his theory. If it is not, then how is it not?

I notice that you also completely ignore the question about Al Gore’s claims of an ice free Arctic by 2014. Here I am asking you simply to acknowledge that the data we have is not consistent with Gore’s prediction. Nothing more.

Ok, one last time, asking you to demonstrate some semblance of being reasonable and intellectually honest.

David Dirkse
Reply to  Rich Davis
February 24, 2019 5:16 pm

1) Al Gore’s claims are irrelevant to the discussion we are having. Attempted diversion doesn’t help your argument. In a similar vein, the nuclear power industry claimed that with fission, electricity would be “too cheap to meter.” I will continue to ignore any mention you make about Gore because it has no bearing on what is actually happening in the Arctic.
..
2) You cannot make any assessment of a theory about a 60 year cycle with only 40 years of data.

rchard verney
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 6:42 pm

You are right that one should be extremely cautious about mixing different systems of measurements, but that said, we have more than 40 years of data to see whether the amount of ice appears to be cyclical in nature.

Vnnikov the lead author of IPCC AR1 chapter 7 showed his centennial assessment of Arctic Sea Ice extent, with 5 year smoothing and this shows cyclical trends.

We have HADCRUT 3 covering temps north of 66 feg, which shows the 1920s/1930s warmer than today.

We have numerous newspaper articles published in the late 1800s through to the 1960s discussing Arctic Sea Ice trends.

We even have measurements of ice thickness going back to the 1950s which suggest that the thickness today is about the same as it was in the 1950s.

Taking everything as a whole there is a strong case that Arctic Sea Ice is cyclical in nature.

I would agree with others who have pointed out the lack of correlation between sea ice (Arctic and Antarctic) and CO2.

Rich Davis
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 6:44 pm

Well if you compare Al Gore’s statements to a prediction of nuclear power too cheap to meter, then you are implicitly acknowledging that Al Gore was wrong. But the fact that you can’t just acknowledge it is proof that you’re not reasonable.

If the expected curve based on Javier’s theory is sinusoidal, and the data had been falling since the start of measurements until recently bottoming out and starting to rise again, that is consistent with the expected curve based on the theory. If the data resumes a negative trajectory before returning to approximately its original value, it would falsify the theory.

The fact that the data has not yet falsified that theory is all that I was asking you to acknowledge. In such a scenario, it would be totally expected that the last 15 years should be below the mean because the expectation is not a horizontal line, but a sine wave. You were not asked to agree that the theory is true or could have a physical basis. You were not asked to estimate the period or amplitude from looking at several periods of data. You were just asked to acknowledge that it could be true because the data does not falsify the theory up to now. Yet you refuse to do so. So, I have to conclude again that you are not reasonable.

David Dirkse
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 7:09 pm

Verney “Taking everything as a whole” we don’t have enough data to verify ANY cycle.

“We have HADCRUT 3 ” …..but that doesn’t measure sea ice extent.

“newspaper articles ” do not measure sea ice extent.
..
“We even have measurements of ice thickness” ……they also do not measure sea ice extent (apples/oranges)

David Dirkse
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 7:11 pm

Davis: “and starting to rise again”
..
NOPE

Rich Davis
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 25, 2019 3:17 am

You are exasperating, David. You would be correct to assert that we don’t have statistically-significant data to state that extents are starting to increase again. I did not make that claim, and that is not what I asked you. I asked you to acknowledge that the data we have is still consistent with Javier’s theory.

Put another way, can you demonstrate the null hypothesis to falsify Javier’s theory using the data that we have? Such a minimal acknowledgment that is nothing more than a restatement of your prior position minus the dogmatic certainty that you know “what is happening in the Arctic.” (Even though inconsistently, you have no expectation for ice extent in 2020).

Apparently admitting to anything short of omniscience would undermine your true objective. What is that objective, we might ask? It certainly is not to advance understanding through the scientific method.

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 25, 2019 3:39 am

David, you said

Again, you are ignoring the fact that the Arctic sea ice is in decline.

Fine, I hope for NO arctic sea ice all year round esp. in winter but if that doesn’t happen or does, so what?

Editor
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 25, 2019 6:37 am

David Dirkse,

What about these scientists no summer sea ice predictions?

Wadhams, Hansen, Sereeze, Maslowski and more:

http://notrickszone.com/2018/07/21/charlatans-of-the-arctic-laughing-stock-ice-free-arctic-predictions-fake-science-at-its-best/

You should stop digging a hole, a deep hole.

BCBill
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 6:08 pm

Please see the Willis E. article on long term persistence. It is very common for measures of natural phenomena to move in trends or bunches. If it is sunny today, there is a better than even chance it will be sunny tomorrow because high pressure systems tend to hang around for a few days. This is the reason that the old reliable weather forecast of “the weather tomorrow will be the same as today” is about as reliable as Environment Canada’s weather forecast. We don’t have enough accurate measures of Arctic sea ice to understand “normal” patterns but a betting man would feel good wagering that yearly fluctuations are not purely random.

Reply to  David Dirkse
February 24, 2019 9:10 pm

David Dirkse said: “Nice cherry you picked Tillman…..2012 sea ice minimum is the lowest in the entire satellite record.” And also: “See any pattern here?”

Nice change of subject, Dirkse. Gore’s prediction was that sea ice would be gone by 2016. None left. Zilch.

Gone, not would just lower than in the past. Gore’s prediction, along with that of least two scientific papers, was off by well over a million square miles. See any pattern here, Mr. Dirkse? Like an epic fail?

TimTheToolMan
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 25, 2019 1:14 pm

There is only one non cherry picked date and that is today. One can ask how far back from today can one look to see, say a flat trend. That’s a legitimate question.

Mick
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 26, 2019 1:21 pm

And that started in 79. So? its cyclical. That’s teensy weensy picture. You are cherry picking.

Henry Galt
February 24, 2019 12:04 pm

Unprecedented vertical trend inbound. Save the children. Obviously not those we should currently continue to push under the bus but the others, as yet unborn

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Henry Galt
February 24, 2019 11:00 pm

That was my take on the most recent apparent trend. Polar ice increasing at the same time that NH winter temperatures are plummeting. That’s not a good thing.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
February 24, 2019 11:02 pm

And it snowed in Southern California last week.

ren
February 24, 2019 12:04 pm

Tomorrow, atmospheric intrusion will hit the Northeast. It will be a surprise.
comment image

ren
Reply to  ren
February 24, 2019 12:12 pm

Sorry: ” stratospheric intrusion”.
comment image
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/

Kenji
February 24, 2019 12:06 pm

But the ice isn’t thick
But the ice is compromised by Co2 content
But the Arctic satellites are being sabotaged by BIG OIL

But … EXTREME Polar Vortexing weather!!!

Javier
Reply to  Kenji
February 24, 2019 12:29 pm

The pancake-to-crêpe hypothesis of Arctic sea-ice. It is the same extent but thinner. Alarmists are irrational.

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Javier
February 24, 2019 2:46 pm

They are also wrong. Sea ice volume has been on an upward trend since we have been able to measure it.

comment image

Arctic Sea Ice Reality:

https://climategrog.wordpress.com/cpom_arctic_ice_vol_mths/

Ray in SC
Reply to  Kenji
February 24, 2019 3:42 pm

Jenji,

You forgot the /s.

John Tillman
February 24, 2019 12:07 pm

According to NOAA’s NSIDC, yesterday’s extent was higher than in the five past years:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

Prjindigo
Reply to  John Tillman
February 24, 2019 9:55 pm

*Extent* means absolutely nothing at all. There will be sea ice where the temp is more than 8°F below the freezing temp of the local ocean’s freezing point. The *thickness* of any ice is more important but the ice being thin only shows that there is more circulation beneath the surface and that snowfall has faded compared to previous years.

So the extent means absolutely positively abjectly and scientifically (as well as statistically) NOTHING AT ALL.

That’s why the warmists keep pointing out that it is shrinking.

John Tillman
Reply to  Prjindigo
February 26, 2019 9:05 am

Except that summer minimum extent, as reported by NSIDC from satellite observations, has stopped shrinking. It has been flat since 2007 and rising since 2012.

Samuel C Cogar
February 24, 2019 12:09 pm

But the massive amount of Arctic sea ice for 2019 …… won’t prevent NASA et el from proclaiming 2019 as the “hottest year ever”.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
February 24, 2019 2:05 pm

Samuel, the outlook is for more adjustments as per the Karlization that adjusted the Dreaded Pause out of existence. The radiometers are confounded by drift or sone such.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 24, 2019 11:05 pm

Och, aye, the dilithium crrrystals werrre imprrroperrrly installed.

John Tillman
February 24, 2019 12:11 pm

Although Javier’s graph is also from NSIDC data, the first graph on the Charctic site shows yesterday higher than 2014, as well as 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018.

Javier
Reply to  John Tillman
February 24, 2019 12:18 pm

Yesterday already had more Arctic ice than any day in 2015-2018. That is not yet the case with 2014 that in some days of March had more ice than yesterday.

John Tillman
Reply to  Javier
February 24, 2019 12:31 pm

I see what you meant. I was just comparing yesterday’s date with the same day in the previous years.

R Shearer
Reply to  Javier
February 24, 2019 1:52 pm

It had more than 1974’s maximum also.

Percy Jackson
Reply to  John Tillman
February 24, 2019 3:00 pm

It is also lower than 2012 which ended up being the lowest summer minimum on record. And
incidentally the ice extent for January was about the 3rd lowest on record.

Earthling2
February 24, 2019 12:11 pm

The pause is going on 19-20 years now, and it seems ever so gradual cooling of the NH is now the new trend. How long this will last, who knows but there certainly isn’t any scientific evidence that we are warming past some tipping point. More ice km2 at the northern pole on this date is evidence of that.

This should also be cause for a pause in the alarming Alarmism that is now ravaging the news cycle about why we should be panicking about climate change. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are living in the most benign weather and climate that the world has seen for 99.99% of the last 2.6 million years.

Javier
Reply to  Earthling2
February 24, 2019 12:25 pm

How long this will last, who knows

According to the ~65-year oscillation in many climate indices and predicted solar activity for SC25 it should last until the mid 2030s to early 2040s.

rchard verney
Reply to  Javier
February 25, 2019 12:17 am

I can’t remember the exact date but probably more than 5 years ago Julia Slingo, head of UK Met Office, said that it was likely that there would not.be a return to warming before 2030.

This was when the pause was recognized and had not been erased by adjustments.

So she obviously accepted that there were natural forcings dominating the forcing of CO2.

Not clear to what extent she accepted cyclical nature of AMO and the like

Rich Davis
Reply to  rchard verney
February 25, 2019 8:20 am

So the alternative to AMO being cyclical would be that the oscillation is random with no fixed or approximate period? Sometimes it fluctuates up for a few decades then down for a couple of years, then up for a century, then it bounces back and forth every three years? No way to predict even an approximate period? How would that comport with reality?

comment image

Matt G
Reply to  Javier
February 26, 2019 10:51 am

The link shows how the increasing AMO trendline and more recent decreasing trendline intercept at the peak AMO.

The Summer Arctic sea ice lowest minimum recorded occurred at this exact moment.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/normalise/from:1995/plot/esrl-amo/from:1995/trend/plot/esrl-amo/from:2003/trend

We recorded the lowest Summer Arctic sea ice minimum with the highest recorded AMO in recent history. All expected with the AMOC and AMO hugely contributing towards the anomalous behaviour of Arctic sea ice.

Not surprising this minimum has not been reached since because the AMO hasn’t quite reached this equivalent level again yet. If the AMO peaks again in the near future a possible 2012 minimum will occur again, but if the AMO cools long term this minimum will not been seen again for a long time.

The AMO is not supposed to become negative until another 14 years time.

John Tillman
Reply to  Earthling2
February 24, 2019 12:29 pm

Unless my arithmetic be off, .01% of 2.6 million years is only 260 years.

We could well be in the balmiest time since AD 1759, although the 1930s might have been warmer.

Other intervals in the Holocene adding up to 260 years were definitely toastier than now, not to mention even warmer previous interglacials, such as the last one, the Eemian.

rah
Reply to  John Tillman
February 24, 2019 1:04 pm

“We could well be in the balmiest time since AD 1759, although the 1930s might have been warmer.”

The mid 30s were most certainly very hot relative to averages in the historic record but after NOAA got done adjusting them they were just a itty bit above average.

John Tillman
Reply to  rah
February 24, 2019 1:11 pm

Sadly true.

And they’re not done adjusting yet. Plus now, they cook the raw data books, so their thumbs are on the thermometers.

NOAA is a corrupt, criminal conspiracy, and Trump has yet to muck out the stinking stables.

Mike in MN
Reply to  John Tillman
February 24, 2019 4:32 pm

In the Australia blogs I have read that the BOM there changed the thermometers from mercury to electronic which measure every second, so a blast of hotter air will more likely raise the daily high to a level above what would be read on a mercury thermometer. Then they said they had to adjust the mercury data but they cooled that data from the past which makes no sense. Just wondering if anyone knows what they are doing in the States.

Mike in MN
Reply to  John Tillman
February 24, 2019 4:33 pm

In the Australia blogs I have read that the BOM there changed the thermometers from mercury to electronic which measure every second, so a blast of hotter air will more likely raise the daily high to a level above what would be read on a mercury thermometer. Then they said they had to adjust the mercury data but they cooled that data from the past which makes no sense. Just wondering if anyone knows what they are doing in the States.

Menicholas
Reply to  John Tillman
February 25, 2019 1:03 am

Same thing.
They installed the new devices over a period of years, and used that as an opportunity to adjust millions of temp readings from the past forever years all over the country. Instead of noting on the graphs that a change was made and leaving the data alone.
It is not data anymore, it is a result based on their modelling of what the readings should have been, and lo and behold the adjusted readings in every case make the trend over time more monotonic.
They claim they want to remove bias from the records.
That is a great idea: Let removed the biased warmistas who are in charge of collecting, compiling, adjusting, and readjusting the records, since their bias is so blindingly obvious, to ignore it or pretend it is not evident is itself proof of bias.

gbaikie
Reply to  Earthling2
February 24, 2019 12:31 pm

“We are living in the most benign weather and climate that the world has seen for 99.99% of the last 2.6 million years.”

Maybe, it’s getting ready to pounce.
Is it the most benign, if so, why?
Could it be due to slight increase in the CO2?
Does modern technology, allow us to be less surprised?
Or is it just due to our recent experience of living thru the Little Ice Age, which makes it only seem
to more benign, and there were plenty of times in the 2.6 million years which as good or much better?
What causes thew last 2.6 years to be bad, is that large amount of the time, that was during glacial periods. Or obviously more than 1/2 the time or more than 75% of the time, was very bad.

But what is not good about current times we live in, is all the land area of deserts, so in the times when the Sahara wasn’t a desert, it could been a better time. And it was green for many thousands of years.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  gbaikie
February 25, 2019 3:57 am

Could it be due to slight increase in the CO2?

I don’t think there is much hope for people that ask that question.

Javier
Reply to  Earthling2
February 24, 2019 1:34 pm

We are living in the most benign weather and climate that the world has seen for 99.99% of the last 2.6 million years.

And we are living right now in the most malign (colder) weather and climate that the world has seen for 90% of the last 540 million years. The world is in an icehouse condition. That is why there are massive ice sheets over Antarctica and Greenland.

Earthling2
Reply to  Javier
February 24, 2019 3:20 pm

In the scheme of things, even now, we are probably well on our way moving out of the interglacial in the NH into a full blown ice age within 6000-7000 years. And in the bigger scheme of things, it may be we are heading for CO2 extinction at some point in the next several million years when some future ice age and CO2 falls below 150 ppmv. That is all a long way off for us presently, but is probably more accurate than the alarmist world of a potential Hot House Earth caused by CO2.

But for right now, especially the last 100 years or so, we have been in a goldilocks zone of some of the the most favourable weather/climate that could be dreamt possible which combined with fossil fuels led to a exponential explosion in human population and knowledge. The Goldilocks principle states that something must fall within certain margins, as opposed to reaching extremes. The Goldilocks principle is derived from a children’s story “The Three Bears” in which a little girl named Goldilocks finds a house owned by three bears. Each bear has their own preference of food, beds, etc. After testing each of the three items, Goldilocks determines that one of them is always too much in one extreme (too hot, too large, etc.), one is too much in the opposite extreme (too cold, too small, etc.), and one is “just right”.

We are presently in that “just right” zone the last 100 years. While we can definitely handle some additional warming from here, any major cooling trend would indeed be bad news to this ‘just right’ climate we have been experiencing that has led to such overall good fortune. Let’s hope the present warming sticks around for another 1000 years or so without too many dips into another worse LIA.

Javier
Reply to  Earthling2
February 24, 2019 4:42 pm

We think that we are in the just right zone, just because that is the zone we are. As hairless tropical mammals we could probably be much better off in a Miocene world, and we would have an entire continent and a very large island more to play with.

The loss of all the fauna and flora that lived in Antarctica, the crepuscular continent, was a great loss to the planet. Of the thousands of plant and animal species that lived there only the emperor penguin was capable of adapting, and remains as the emperor of the lost continent.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Earthling2
February 24, 2019 2:09 pm

Even New Mexico and Arizona are seeing increase in ice extent! You can walk on frozen ground from Arizona to India… in late February.

John Tillman
Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 24, 2019 3:21 pm

Ski the Superstitions!

old construction worker
February 24, 2019 12:16 pm

If this keeps up according to my “computer model” New York will be under a 1/2 mile of ice in 30 years

H.R.
Reply to  old construction worker
February 24, 2019 1:20 pm

It’ll still be the warmest year evah! though.

ren
February 24, 2019 12:34 pm

The ice in the central Arctic began to grow rapidly from February 5.
http://masie_web.apps.nsidc.org/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r00_Northern_Hemisphere_ts_4km.png

John Tillman
Reply to  ren
February 24, 2019 12:38 pm

February has been brutally cold over much of the NH.

Reply to  John Tillman
February 24, 2019 1:30 pm

Here is the UK we have a warm spell.
It’s weather.
But Scotland recently [Thursday 21st???] had a new record high temperature for February, beating a temperature form [IIRC] 1897 [so more than a century ago].
Per the Met Office.
I do not believe the temperature was taken at Aberdeen airport immediately after the 1325 London -bound jet had passed . . . . .1

Auto

Reply to  auto
February 24, 2019 1:32 pm

Here IN . . .
My fault. Sorry.

Auto

John Tillman
Reply to  auto
February 24, 2019 2:31 pm

The heat has to be hiding somewhere, to make it so cold over most of North America and Eurasia. Parts of northern Africa, too.

Menicholas
Reply to  auto
February 25, 2019 1:16 am

Those southerly winds from last week compacted the ice towards the poles, and yet extent grew rapidly anyway.
Because it is extremely cold over the Arctic right now.
Those southerly winds have now reversed, and northerly winds seem likely to cause more ice gain from freezing additional ocean areas, and also from ice being pushed back south from the compacted state it is in near the pole.
I would be willing to bet any warmista that 5 years from now Arctic ice will be greatly increased from current levels.
Would be, except for an annoying habit of them all to make bets and then slink away what they lose the bet, as someone named Tony when his bet with me, right here, of no ice by the end of Summer (his position) was utterly wrong.
But I will make such a bet, if our host will hold the money in an escrow account or something like that. $1000 minimum, in $1000 increments.
Put up or shut up.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  John Tillman
February 24, 2019 2:13 pm

Even with all that cold air that poured down over Chicago creating new temperature lows in IL, IA, OH. WUWT??

Menicholas
Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 25, 2019 1:28 am

All time low temp records for entire states, not daily records, not individual sites.
Lowest ever recorded, for the entire state.
People froze to death in their homes…young and healthy people.
College student froze to death walking to his car.
A man froze to death right outside his home.
Downtown LA just reportedly had the first snow since 1962. Nearly 60 years.
Places in Arizona that apparently do not know what snow is have massive accumulations.
More snow is coming for the Sierra, over 3 feet over the entire range in coming days, with over a foot of rain in spots below the snow line.
Heaviest snowfall ever recorded on any date for a huge number of locations, including normally snowy Flagstaff.
Warmista have an uncanny knack for predicting the opposite of what is about to happen.
If their streak holds, it is gonna be wet and cold in a lot of places for a long time to come.

Art
February 24, 2019 12:45 pm

Impossible! Arctic ice is vanishing!

Global warming resulted in the polar vortex moving all the cold arctic air south this winter once again, so adjusted data proves that there’s less ice than ever before!

icisil
February 24, 2019 12:46 pm

When folks read sea ice in articles, they really need to stop and think about what kind of metric is involved (extent, area or volume). Almost universally the reference is to sea ice extent, but not always. Sea ice extent is affected by wind as much as it is by temperature (wind can decrease sea ice extent in freezing temperatures). Authors will almost always be referring to sea ice extent, because that serves their narrative when it decreases, but they don’t mention it otherwise. A more accurate metric would be sea ice area, but since the technology to quantitatively measure sea ice (in all regards: extent, area, volume) is so limited, sea ice extent is used as an easy cop out, and a convenient tool when it decreases.

ren
Reply to  icisil
February 24, 2019 12:59 pm

The graph shows the annual variation of the volume of the sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, excluding the Baltic Sea and the Pacific. The volume of the ice is calculated on the basis of the ice thicknesses from the HYCOM-CICE model. In each grid cell the volume is calculated as thickness multiplied with concentration and with area, with contributions from all grid cells to the total volume. The grey band around the climatologic mean value corresponds to plus/minus one standard deviation based on the 10-year average 2004-2013.
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/sea/CICE_curve_thick_LA_EN_20190223.png

icisil
Reply to  ren
February 24, 2019 1:12 pm

“In each grid cell the volume is calculated as thickness multiplied with concentration and with area, with contributions from all grid cells to the total volume”

Everything is determined from concentration (extent, area and volume), which is simply the 16-bit RGB pixel value (gray scale) on passive microwave satellite photos. All of it is highly modeled; none of it is a direct measurement.

icisil
Reply to  icisil
February 24, 2019 1:19 pm

eh, sorry, 8-bit RGB… 0-255

icisil
Reply to  icisil
February 24, 2019 1:04 pm

Commendably, Javier made it abundantly clear that he was talking about sea ice extent

ren
Reply to  icisil
February 24, 2019 1:14 pm

You can see that the volume is higher than in El Niño years.

Javier
Reply to  ren
February 24, 2019 1:36 pm

I don’t trust volume, as it is not measured.

icisil
Reply to  Javier
February 24, 2019 2:05 pm

Neither is sea ice extent. It is modeled from photo pixel value.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
February 24, 2019 2:50 pm

Photo pixel value is a measurement, and a measurement that it is repeated every day, so its measurement error gets corrected all the time and is smaller. Volume is just an educated guess.

icisil
Reply to  Javier
February 24, 2019 3:04 pm

But raw pixel values are not sea ice extent; they are sea ice concentration. The passive microwave signals are so weak that lots of stuff skews the signal: rain, snow, snow cover on ice, wind speed, etc.. So a lot of assumptions have to be made about those things and algorithms applied to get the final sea ice extent product (that’s what they actually call the raw data after it has been massaged).

icisil
Reply to  Javier
February 24, 2019 3:09 pm

That’s why you can get different sea ice extents from different agencies that use the same raw data. They all make different assumptions and employ their own proprietary algorithms.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
February 25, 2019 3:02 am

Raw pixel values are not sea ice extent but they depend on sea ice extent. It is a proxy, in the same way the mercury in the thermometer is a proxy. No proxy is perfect, they all have issues.

Volume is just made up from assumptions built into a model. The fact that pixel values are fed into the model does not prevent the assumptions from being in control. Volume from different sources is obviously a lot more different than extent from different sources, as the assumptions are not the same.

icisil
Reply to  Javier
February 25, 2019 6:00 am

Again, assumptions are made when calculating sea ice extent. That’s why there’s a long wait from the time the raw data are posted until data massaging is complete and the final sea ice extent product is released to the public. The raw data are meaningless because too many factors affect the signal.

Volume calculations require additional, or different, assumptions.

icisil
Reply to  icisil
February 24, 2019 6:50 pm

Here’s what wind does to ice extent – compresses and stacks ice reducing extent. This just happened on Lake Erie when the ice dam broke.

Menicholas
Reply to  icisil
February 25, 2019 1:34 am

That guy was being very incautious. He was lucky he was not killed.

icisil
Reply to  Menicholas
February 25, 2019 5:42 am

That can happens when the adrenalin starts flowing.

petermue
February 24, 2019 12:50 pm

You can wait for the moment when they desperately play it down as an outlier or a measurement error.
I’m almost certain.

jtom
Reply to  petermue
February 24, 2019 2:14 pm

After a few consecutive years of outliers, maybe it will finally out liars.

Bruce Sanson
February 24, 2019 12:51 pm

Arctic volume of sea-ice is either flat or slightly increasing over the last 8-9 years depending on which data set you like- for January at least.
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/cryosat_piomas_awi_ts.2011.2019.Jan.png

Dave O.
February 24, 2019 12:53 pm

Arctic sea ice has long been thought of as the “canary in the coal mine” indicator of global warming, so it’s followed closely. As of now, although the canary may be frozen in a solid block of ice, it’s still alive.

PaulH
February 24, 2019 12:54 pm

Yes there may be ice, but it is rotten ice so it doesn’t count. Besides the settled science tells
us the the Arctic has been ice-free since 2014, so there!
/sarc

R2DToo
Reply to  PaulH
February 24, 2019 11:18 pm

They have already established that global warming can cause global cooling (vortex). I’m sure we will hear that global warming also can cause more ice. sarc/sarc

angech
February 24, 2019 1:05 pm

Usually skating on thin ice when trying to jump on the bandwagon of thin ice, JAXA went down yesterday after 3 massive jumps in a row.
Obviously recovering from the delayed effects of 2 years of El Niño in 2016.
Broken 14,000,000 sq km.
Has been as low as 3rd and as high as 12th lowest twice this year in it,s recovery.
Needs to fill the central Arctic basin hole in ( nearly done) and get some Atlantic side expansion in the short 20 days average left to growin.
Go ice go.
Ignore the anti Al Gore effect for once.

Joel O'Bryan
February 24, 2019 1:12 pm

The real difference between the anomalies of a high minimum year and a low minimum year begins in early- to mid-May. For example, look at 2012 — the famous low minimum year the alarmists still use. The 2012 winter (early March) maximum line pretty well tracks the 1981-2010 median until starting in mid-May when 2012 line starts heading down at a much faster rate than the median. Curiously, this mid-May time coincides with the CO2 seasonal witch from increasing CO2 to decreasing CO2 for the Northern Hemisphere.

While the sea ice maxima extent date (early March) is surely governed by increasing insolation by early March (and nothing is growing then in the Arctic either), the beginning sea-ice anomaly deviation begins in mid-May that differentiates between a high ice minima year and a low ice minima year. This suggests something other than insolation or even water temps are at play. There is of course “memory” from one year to the next in terms of amount of multi-year ice, but this curious timing with the CO2 seasonal swings suggests a biological input as well, as well as a possible coupling between sea ice removal allowing more ocean surface CO2 outgassing.

And the annual NH CO2 growth rate curve is largely governed by when in September the CO2 curve turns flat and starts increasing by 1 October. Again, this is quite similar year to year to when the sea ice extent decrease turns flat in September for that year.

Unfortunately on the biological side, measuring Arctic Ocean plankton primary productivity through chlorophyll fluorescence of the high latitude regions is technically limited by the method satellites such as OCO-2 measure chlorophyll florescence.

at any rate, compare:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/graph.html
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

So we can see CO2 is indeed the sea-ice extent Magic Molecule. (Mann-nical laughter warranted)

February 24, 2019 1:24 pm

I hope that is correct. However, the line on the graph
comment image
does look a bit odd, it could be an error

ren
Reply to  vukcevic
February 24, 2019 1:49 pm

To nie błąd, ale długość jednostki na osi pionowej.

Reply to  ren
February 24, 2019 2:01 pm

I have in mind 2019 graph section

ren
Reply to  vukcevic
February 24, 2019 1:57 pm

Sorry.
This is not an error, but the length of the unit on the vertical axis.
http://masie_web.apps.nsidc.org/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r00_Northern_Hemisphere_ts_4km.png

February 24, 2019 1:44 pm

This will come as very bad news to the Warmistas. It is not at all the news that they want.

R Shearer
Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
February 24, 2019 1:56 pm

I wonder what it will be like on January 20, 2031, the day before the world ends, as proclaimed by AOC.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  R Shearer
February 24, 2019 2:37 pm

The world will end in 2036 when the asteroid Apophis hits the Earth. They are just not telling anyone.

R Shearer
Reply to  Tom in Florida
February 24, 2019 3:39 pm

Five more years! It’s good to be optimistic.

icisil
Reply to  Tom in Florida
February 24, 2019 3:40 pm

When Apophis buzzes the Earth on April 13, 2029, it will come within 19,400 miles

Yikes! That’s close.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  icisil
February 24, 2019 5:49 pm

The unknown is the change in course by that close encounter that will send it back our way in 2036. Now, I know the government is saying it will not hit us then either and will actually miss us by even more, but then they surely wouldn’t tell us if it will hit us.

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  icisil
February 25, 2019 4:05 am

Tom, we know for sure it will not encounter anything close enough in the meantime out there that will change its course? What a relief.

Bob boder
Reply to  Tom in Florida
February 24, 2019 6:23 pm

1. There is almost zero chance of it hitting based on the latest calculations

2. It’s not big enough to cause anything other then local damage not world ending anything.

icisil
Reply to  R Shearer
February 24, 2019 3:27 pm

12 more years… duh

Coeur de Lion
February 24, 2019 2:03 pm

I cherrypick 1935

kim
February 24, 2019 2:30 pm

Heh, Go Baby Ice, Go. A wintry blast from the past. A Polar Snorfax.
====================================

Ulric Lyons
February 24, 2019 2:51 pm
Dr Deanster
February 24, 2019 2:56 pm

As I view it, the increase in Arctic ice is a sign the system is trying to hold on to some heat. After all, ice is insulation at the pole, protecting the water from subzero temps. Couple with the half hearted El Niño …… we may be heading into some cooler times. Granted, I said “may”, as I think the whole system is mostly chaotic.

The relative increase in precipitation we’ve had over the last few years transported too much heat out of the system. Now the system is reversing phase. It needs to soak up some heat, but factors are hindering that process.

That’s your canary.

dodgy geezer
February 24, 2019 3:03 pm

This sudden growth in ice is very different from a few years ago.

I propose that we call it ‘Arctic Ice Weirding’ and blame it on CO2…

Patrick MJD
February 24, 2019 3:44 pm

What were the predictions made by Girff and Tony McLeod again? Oh dear! The great think about prodictions, especially of the near future, is that we usually don’t have to wait long.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Patrick MJD
February 24, 2019 5:28 pm

Where is Griff? I’d love to hear what the resident WUWT troll has to say.

Hugs
Reply to  Graemethecat
February 25, 2019 12:57 am

It’s David’s shift.

Bob boder
Reply to  Patrick MJD
February 24, 2019 6:05 pm

Tony predicated and bet that the North Pole would be ice free in 2017, he lost. The bet was that he would never post again if he lost, of course he welched on the bet. Griff agreed with him but was unwilling to take the bet.

Menicholas
Reply to  Bob boder
February 25, 2019 10:01 am

Yes, that was the guy!
I had a bet with him, a monetary bet.
Made right here.
And golly was he rude as all get out.
He never had any intention of paying.
Total sleaze.

Alan Robertson
February 24, 2019 6:14 pm

Daily mean temperature in the Arctic (per Danish Meteorological Institute) hasn’t yet risen above 250K, any day in 2019 and one needs to go back to 1993 to find another year when this was true, although a couple of other years in the 90s came close.
No big deal. More ice, less ice, ho hum.
I just hope that Punxatawny Phil got it right, this year.
signed- Sick O Winter

Brian Hatch
February 24, 2019 6:20 pm

The growth in sea ice is what the Russian studies had predicted, with the growth to continue for another 20 years . This is based on the 60 year cycle identified in their sea ice studies which are based on evidence going back a long way

Sceptical
February 24, 2019 7:07 pm

Arctic Sea ice has been declining since 2014. The trend is declining.

Sceptical
Reply to  Sceptical
February 24, 2019 7:13 pm

2014 is after 2012 so the trend is in decline.

Sceptical
Reply to  Sceptical
February 24, 2019 7:15 pm

It’s a two year natural cycle!

Joe Ebeni
February 24, 2019 7:40 pm

November, 1922 Monthly Weather Review
The Changing Arctic
By George Nicolas Ifft
Under date of October 10, 1922, the American consul at Bergen Norway submitted
The following report to the State Department, Washington DC
The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fisherman, seal huners, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions and hitherto unheard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth’s surface.

Javier
Reply to  Joe Ebeni
February 25, 2019 2:54 am

The Arctic is warmer in winter but cooler in summer. Check it at DMI. And then try to come up with an explanation. I already did. It is a sign of more efficient cooling by the planet and a big contribution to the pause. Just the opposite of what Arctic amplification is supposed to do.

William Ward
February 24, 2019 7:52 pm

Arctic Sea Ice Extent (ASIE) may have scientific value, but the media runs with this metric without regard to its scientific value. That’s because its easy to use ASIE to support Climate Alarmism. To the uninformed, ASIE is equivalent to “how much ice is there”. That isn’t the case. ASIE, with its 15% threshold is massively deceiving if it is used to indicate volume.

Sea ice is important because it reflects sunlight (incoming energy). The more the Arctic ocean is covered, the greater the reflection. The less the “extent” the more that energy is absorbed by the ocean. However, ASIE treats 100% coverage the same as 15% coverage. I’m not sure it helps with understanding ocean cover, but that is what it is supposed to do. I don’t find it to be a very useful metric for anything. I prefer Arctic Sea Ice Volume (ASIV). Its modeled, but it gives a better indication of how much energy is being transferred to the atmosphere as ice is made. It tells us about the energy state of the atmosphere to be able to make that volume of ice.

ASIV doesn’t give us any reason for alarm – therefore it is not often reported. Here is a graph of the latest data from DMI for 1/02/2003 to 2/23/2019.

https://imgur.com/IEdae0h

Data: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/txt/IceVol.txt

Also, the age of the age and temperature of the ice are important. As ice ages its trapped salinity decreases and its melt temperature goes up. As its temperature goes down it’s albedo goes up.

To get a scientific picture of the ice we need to know the extent, thickness (volume), temperature and age – all in one picture.

Menicholas
Reply to  William Ward
February 25, 2019 10:18 am

The temperature of the ice is very important, I agree. The bottom of the sheet in contact with the water is probably always about the same temp at any given time of year.
And any ice that is very thick is probably close the average air temp for the majority of the mass.
I believe the thermal conductivity of ice is higher than for water, and also that it can vary quite a bit.
And highly irregular ice has more surface area for the cold air to conduct away heat, so there is that. Although a snow layer seems likely to inhibit thermal conductivity.
So crumpled ice seems likely to be colder, because more surface area, and snow is less likely to adhere and accumulate on vertically oriented surfaces.

And I agree that this focus on extent, when extent has that very odd way of being measured, seems almost nutty. At the very least there ought to be a separate number for unbroken coverage, to which the part that has partial coverage is added but kept separate.
Wind changes direct and compacts the ice or spreads it out, and extent changes by a huge amount with no change in actual amount of ice. How is that scientific or a measure of anything to do with temperature/ global warming.

Menicholas
Reply to  William Ward
February 25, 2019 10:20 am

Imagine if snow or rain was reported as the area over which it is falling or fell, rather than the amount that fell?

WR2
February 24, 2019 7:58 pm

Is there a graph showing annual trend for peak ice extent? All of NSIDCs graph seem to want to show a biased view compared with some arbitrary and cherry-picked reference period, with no indication of annual trend.

Patrick MJD
February 24, 2019 8:25 pm

Didn’t Gore say the ice would all be gone (By 2013)? Ice is just not cooperating with all that CO2 induced warming.

Dennis Sandberg
February 24, 2019 8:48 pm

David: ” satellites aren’t the only way that the ice extent can be measured. “
..
LOL

They are the best way to measure it as they have the best coverage.
Note: to help assure that you are open mined about “climate change” Please confirm that you agree that satellite temperature data is better than the land based recordings more warmists prefer using.

DWR54
Reply to  Dennis Sandberg
February 24, 2019 9:35 pm

Dennis Sandberg

Please confirm that you agree that satellite temperature data is better than the land based recordings more warmists prefer using.

The disagreement in trend among the TLT satellite producers is far greater than that between the surface data producers over the period of their common record. Here are UAH and RSS, with RSS offset to the UAH 1981-2010 base period: http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/offset:-0.14/plot/rss/offset:-0.14/trend/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/trend

And here are GISS and HadCRUT4 over the same period and set to the same anomaly base as above: http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/offset:-0.42/from:1979/plot/gistemp/offset:-0.42/from:1979/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/offset:-0.29/from:1979/plot/hadcrut4gl/offset:-0.29/from:1979/trend

If the satellite temperature data is superior to the surface data then why do the different satellite sets disagree with one another so much?

Dennis Sandberg
Reply to  DWR54
February 24, 2019 11:18 pm

DWR54: You seem to prefer land/sea records. I don’t because of area gaps and heat islands. It gets down to who’s data manipulation do you trust. I have to go with Spencer/Christy. In the meantime for lack of sound data we need to stop the insane attack on fossil fuels and the hopeless investing in wind/solar/ethanol.
Version 6.0 of the UAH Temperature Dataset Released: New LT Trend = +0.11 C/decade
April 28th, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
by Roy W. Spencer, John R. Christy, and William D. Braswell
Abstract
Version 6 of the UAH MSU/AMSU global satellite temperature dataset is by far the most extensive revision of the procedures and computer code we have ever produced in over 25 years of global temperature monitoring.

DWR54
Reply to  Dennis Sandberg
February 25, 2019 2:38 pm

It gets down to who’s data manipulation do you trust. I have to go with Spencer/Christy.

Any particular reason why you “have” to go with them? They’ve been wrong plenty of times in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset#Corrections_made

Often the revisions made to UAH have been forced as the result of corrections suggested by personnel still at RSS.

Dennis Sandberg
Reply to  DWR54
February 25, 2019 11:46 pm

DWR54:”have” to go with UAH because over the years they have proven to be the most accurate/reasonable. your statement:…revisions…forced…. Is a good example of their commitment to excellence. wikileaks not so much, liberals on that site, ijke desmog and skeptical science, seem to have a lot more time to spin data than conservatives.

Dennis Sandberg
Reply to  DWR54
February 26, 2019 12:23 am

DWR54: Dr. Spenser, UAH says, and I agree. All the current evidence points toward UAH being closer to “reality” ….not real common in the co2 as control knob debate.

Diurnal Drift Effects in the RSS Dataset

We have long known that there were differences in the resulting diurnal drift adjustments in the RSS versus our UAH dataset. We believed that the corrections in the older RSS Version 3.3 datasets were “overdone”, generating more warming than UAH prior to 2002 but less than UAH after 2002 (some satellites drift one way in the diurnal cycle, other satellites drift in the opposite direction). This is why the skeptical community liked to follow the RSS dataset more than ours, since UAH showed at least some warming post-1997, while RSS showed essentially no warming (the “pause”).

The new RSS V4 adjustment alters the V3.3 adjustment, and now warms the post-2002 period, but does not diminish the extra warming in the pre-2002 period. Hence the entire V4 time series shows more warming than before

DWR54
February 24, 2019 9:20 pm

Javier

…the “Arctic melting pause” is alive and kicking 12 years later.

NSIDC monthly data suggests that Arctic sea ice extent has continued to decline over the past 12 years (since Jan 2006). The trend since 2006 is around -0.7 million km^2 per decade: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2006/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2006/trend

Looking at each individual month over the past 12 years, the linear trend in Arctic sea ice extent is negative in all of them, including September (-0.5 million km^2 per decade).

How do you get an “Arctic melting pause” out of that?

ren
Reply to  DWR54
February 24, 2019 10:52 pm

When El Niño occurs, the extent of the ice drops, because there is more water vapor in the atmosphere.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/global2/mimictpw_global2_latest.gif

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  ren
February 25, 2019 2:19 am

El Nino episodes drive major warm pulses to the AMO peaking around August after the El Nino peak:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.us.data

Javier
Reply to  DWR54
February 25, 2019 2:27 am

How do you get an “Arctic melting pause” out of that?

Easy. This winter there is more ice than 2006 winter, and last summer there was more ice than 2007 summer. Ergo there is more ice than in the 2006-2007 season. What has happened in between doesn’t affect that fact.

If there is more ice than 12 years ago, there has not been effective melting in 12 years. Irrefutable fact. We start the future from a better position than in March 2006.

DWR54
Reply to  Javier
February 25, 2019 2:43 pm

I see. To get the great “Arctic melting pause” you simply ignore the trend and run with individual values.

Javier
Reply to  DWR54
February 26, 2019 2:32 am

Trends depend on starting and ending point. Trends are not, therefore, facts. Just a changing illusion out of the data. The loss of one third of Arctic sea ice between September 1996 and September 2007 is a fact. No further loss since 2007 is another fact.

By contemplating the illusion of a 1979-2019 trend you are not making the right questions:
Why it melted so much between 1996-2007?
Why it has not melted since 2007?

You think you already have the answer to why the Arctic has melted, that is also illusion. That illusion prevents you from finding the truth. But then, you have no interest in the truth.

Menicholas
Reply to  Javier
February 26, 2019 12:50 am

If 12 years ago we had peeked into our crystal ball and seen how much ice there is right now, would we have talked about this for 12 years?
Or would it have been cast aside as an issue?
If in 1998 we had peeked ahead to now and seen UHI temp anomaly where it is now, would we have been talking about this for the past 21 years?
If we had peeked ahead in 2005 and seen a 12 year major hurricane drought in the US, ow might that have changed the conversation in the intervening years?
It is not just what we are seeing now, it is what we have been subjected to by people who were wrong, over and over again…and despite this, despite nothing substantial to point to as out of the ordinary, we have now before us a 12 year countdown to doomsday!

ren
February 24, 2019 11:11 pm

The extent of ice may increase this year to the end of March, because the temperature above the pole is low compared, for example, to 2017 and 2018.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2017.png
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2018.png
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2019.png

Chaamjamal
February 24, 2019 11:14 pm

Are changes in arctic sea ice extent driven by agw? and can they be moderated by cutting emissions?

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

ren
Reply to  Chaamjamal
February 24, 2019 11:22 pm

At the top of the troposphere, ozone competes with water vapor. You can not see the effect of CO2.
comment image

ren
Reply to  Chaamjamal
February 24, 2019 11:33 pm

Compare this with the layout of the fronts and the temperature of the air. Where ozone displaces water vapor the temperature drops.
comment image
comment image

Hugs
February 25, 2019 12:14 am

David Dirkse wrote

If Arctic sea ice was not in decline, in the past 15 years, some years the extent would be above average, and some would be below average. The fact is that in the past 15 years EVERY year was below average. The probability of that happening is equal to tossing a coin 15 times and getting heads on each and every toss. My best guess is that you are ignorant of basic probability, never mind understanding rudimentary statistics.

The probability of that happening is equal to tossing a coin 15 times” is a false statement.

I think we can safely say

– This is just not a coin-tossing problem. Thinking that it is, is really a layman fallacy.
– We don’t know what ‘the probability’ is
– Future will show what happens
– I’m not going to see Arctic ice free, not even for a brief moment
– If summer melt happened, it wouldn’t make that big a difference. The polar night is dark.
– You ended up in a stupid contest

griff
February 25, 2019 12:26 am

HANG ON A MINBUTE!!!

Last year was the lowest winter extent on record… so this year being greater than it is not quite the recovery this seems to be putting forward!!

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2533.250.html

Today the extent is at 12th lowest in the record… and you will note that the last 10 years all feature in the top 14 years…

The ice this year is also particularly mobile and has grown and receded over the last couple of months.

Honestly, with the ice in 12th worst place, how is there any ‘recovery’ showing here?!

The maximum is due any day – so saying the season ‘hasn’t ended yet’ is a bit of a stretch too

Javier
Reply to  griff
February 25, 2019 2:49 am

Griff, you have been missed.

Last year was the lowest winter extent on record

March 2018 being 99.17% of March 2006 it is not significantly different.

it is not quite the recovery this seems to be putting forward!!

I didn’t say recovery, I said pause.

Today the extent is at 12th lowest in the record

You don’t get any prize for being 12th, particularly among only 40.

saying the season ‘hasn’t ended yet’ is a bit of a stretch

The season ends when it ends, and not a day before.

I suppose you are disappointed with the behavior of Arctic sea-ice, that refuses to melt further despite all your gloom and doom. From being the main talking point of dangerous anthropogenic climate change it has become a painful issue. Followers abandoning sea-ice forums in droves. Hey who wants to watch grass growing or Arctic sea ice not melting.

Richard M
Reply to  griff
February 25, 2019 6:52 am

Griff, thanks for pointing out that the alarmists have recently changed the goal posts from Arctic summer extents to winter extents. It is solid evidence you guys are in a total panic.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  griff
February 25, 2019 4:09 pm

Griff, you and your buddy David are missing the point – there is no more decline. The levels are bottomed out and will be increasing.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  griff
February 25, 2019 5:27 pm

The thread troll had been focusing on minimum extent…the minimum extent has been higher than 2007 for all years since except for 1. That’s the absurd probability of 10 heads to 1 tails in coin flips according to him if there is no underlying trend, so his methods claim there is a recovery even though he won’t admit that. Maybe you two should get together under the bridge and get your stories straight.

Martin Hovland
February 25, 2019 12:29 am

The International Ocean Discovery Program (previously named the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program) are struggling drilling in the Amundsen Sea, now during summer-time, in the Antarctic. Some of their targeted sites for drilling prove to be out of reach because of too much moving ice! The irony is that they were targeted to find out more of the ice history of West Antarctica.
Read the ship reports here. See especially the weekly report for Week 4 and 5.

http://iodp.tamu.edu/scienceops/sitesumm.html

February 25, 2019 1:27 am

If I understand Mr. David Dirkse correctly, there was no Minoic Warm Period, no Roman Warm period, no Medieval Warm Period, no warm 20-40’s and subsequent low Arctic ice levels – because they had no satellites then.

I.e.: After the invention of satellites all historical data from all other empirical sciences had to be rejected.

The scientific end seems to be nigh….

marty
February 25, 2019 1:38 am

we will not get rid of the polar bears!

richard
February 25, 2019 2:39 am

Add on that Summer temps in the Arctic have been below average for the last 20 years according to the DMI.

Matt G
Reply to  richard
February 25, 2019 1:03 pm

The polar jet stream becomes too weak during around summer, so energy plumes from the South have great difficulty reaching Arctic areas above 80N. The result in Summer means temperatures stay cold especially with evaporative cooling and ice melting producing latent heat.

Around winter the polar jet stream becomes strong enabling energy plumes from the south reaching the Arctic and giving large positive temperature anomalies at times when especially in meridional form. The DMI has been showing this behaviour for recent decades.

Climate alarmists over recent years have been moving goal posts to winter sea ice extent because of this highlighted behaviour above. This is clearly a tactic of desperation as it is very clear that Winter sea ice extent doesn’t have any influence on Summer ice extent. The reason being no sunlight dwarfs any variation in climate and is always too cold to prevent the entire polar ocean from freezing over in Winter in its current form.

Richard M
February 25, 2019 6:50 am

One thing that has happened more than once (especially 2012) is that large winter extents lead to low summer extents and vice versa. This seemingly strange relationship actually makes sense when one considers the winter extent is often a factor of the winds in late February/early March.

The thought is if the winds spread out the ice you see a higher extent but that ice is then easier to melt than when winds push it together. Just something to keep in mind.

ren
February 25, 2019 7:02 am

Return of frost with strong wind over the Great Lakes.
comment image

beng135
February 25, 2019 7:18 am

Meh. I don’t get into the sea-ice thingy. Much of today’s sea-ice is next month’s sea-water, or depending on the time of year, vice-versa.

Dr Deanster
Reply to  beng135
February 25, 2019 9:33 am

beng …. you pretty much sum up my perspective on it. Sea Ice is meaningless at the levels that people are quibbling about. Everyone is trying to make trends and meaning out a completely chaotic phenomenon on the time scales they are using, just to try and make some point. After reading all this Climate stuff for 20 years … I’ve concluded there is no evidence to support that:

– CO2 is any kind of major player in temperature
– solar is the driving force of earths climate
– that sea ice is any kind of canary.
– that cows are destroying the climate.
– that polar bears will be extinct in the next decade
– that goofy little cartoon depicting how GHGs and climate operate

…. or for that matter, just about ANY claim made …….

What the data do support …. IS :

– The globe has warmed a little but is still well within its normal range.
– sea ice comes and goes
– the globe has greened a little thanks to more CO2

When I retire, I’d like to explore that the whole thing is controlled by the ocean acting as a capacitor of sorts. Data do suggests that clouds and solar affect the “charging” side of that equation, and the ocean currents do carry heat around, including to the arctic where it melts a little ice 1/2 of the year …. but the whole thing is chaotic.

beng135
Reply to  Dr Deanster
February 25, 2019 10:23 am

Dr Deanster — exactly. The elevation of & focus on the inane — tiny, fractional temp changes in temperatures, changes in an intrinsically rapidly-changing phenomena like sea-ice, on & on & on, and then ignoring the daily benefits that fossil fuels provide, and those from increasing CO2 (while benefiting from every day) on food-crops & the biosphere.

Menicholas
Reply to  Dr Deanster
February 25, 2019 11:01 am

Not so sure chaotic is the right word.
There is a randomness superimposed on cyclical trends on many scales.
Global greening is more than a little bit.
0.85 degrees of warming since 1880 is a little bit.

John Tillman
Reply to  Dr Deanster
February 26, 2019 3:10 pm

There can be big swings year to year in Arctic sea ice, but averaged over decades, it is indeed cyclic, not chaotic. Same for longer time intervals. As for continental ice sheets.

ghalfrunt
February 25, 2019 8:11 am

Javier
Using JAXA data so far this year the extent is following almost the exact same path as for 2012 which turned out to be a record low year.

Before making your rash claims it may be worth looking at the data in another month! And perhaps not cherry pick old data?

I have plotted the rate of change of extent from JAXA. This shows wild fluctuations but in general is following the averaged rate of change as from 1979 to 2005. Minimum ice will not be obvious until nearer the time it occurs.
comment image

Javier
Reply to  ghalfrunt
February 25, 2019 9:03 am

Before making your rash claims

And what exactly are those rash claims that according to you I am making?

ghalfrunt
February 25, 2019 8:18 am

Javier
Here is another plot of maximum extent per year from jaxa (and IPCC – but ignore this if you like). Obviously the minimum for this year is only the minimum to date – so is way high!

Do you see a recovery forming? I do not!

comment image

Javier
Reply to  ghalfrunt
February 25, 2019 9:05 am

Do you see a recovery forming?

Why don’t you read the article to see what I am saying?

ren
Reply to  ghalfrunt
February 25, 2019 9:11 am

What is the significance of the drop when within a year the ice coverage returns to the previous area? Call it a trend? The sunny minimum is not over yet.

marty
February 25, 2019 9:37 am

You still have not understood the problem. If you see the plot today then the ice surface has just risen. When you saw the same plot in 2015, the trend seemed to be clearly down. That’s all natural variation. Whether the ice goes back in time or increases you can not conclude. Real changes become relvant after 50 or 100 years. And even then, such a trend can also tip over at any time.

ren
February 25, 2019 10:14 am

Stratospheric intrusion will attack in the northeast of the US within 12 hours. It’ll be cold.
comment image

angech
February 25, 2019 2:35 pm

Ice tsunami
High winds had raised water levels on the eastern end of Lake Erie in a phenomenon known as a seiche and then, according to the New York Power Authority, driven ice over a boom upstream from the river. The National Weather Service in Buffalo warned that winds along neighboring Lake Ontario could reach 75 mph, causing “extensive damage to trees and power lines, widespread power outages, and property damage to roofs and siding.”
Pictures are incredible.
Worth a post with oicyptures on its own on Fox News at moment

Edwin Adlerman
February 25, 2019 5:03 pm

Stupid people are still falling for this WUWT quackery? This post is now being distributed across the internet as a demonstration as how to cherry pick data and be a climate denier. Lol, what a terrrible attempt at denial, btw.

Editor
Reply to  Edwin Adlerman
February 25, 2019 6:10 pm

Edwin:

Translation,

I have no cogent argument against the posted article, instead will make a data and evidence free babble that will impress no one here who expects something more mature and rational.

Lets see if this is the usual drive by comment as most of this type usually are.

Menicholas
Reply to  Edwin Adlerman
February 26, 2019 12:26 am

Reply to Edwin,
Yeah, but Skeptical Science.
Defense rests.

marty
Reply to  Edwin Adlerman
February 26, 2019 12:31 am

@ Edwin: You refuse to see reality. That’s why you’re blind.

Javier
Reply to  Edwin Adlerman
February 26, 2019 2:24 am

This post is now being distributed across the internet

That’s great! Thanks Edwin.

Dennis Sandberg
February 26, 2019 12:27 am

DWR54: Dr. Spencer, UAH says, and I agree. All the current evidence points toward UAH being closer to “reality” ….not real common in the co2 as control knob debate.

Diurnal Drift Effects in the RSS Dataset

We have long known that there were differences in the resulting diurnal drift adjustments in the RSS versus our UAH dataset. We believed that the corrections in the older RSS Version 3.3 datasets were “overdone”, generating more warming than UAH prior to 2002 but less than UAH after 2002 (some satellites drift one way in the diurnal cycle, other satellites drift in the opposite direction). This is why the skeptical community liked to follow the RSS dataset more than ours, since UAH showed at least some warming post-1997, while RSS showed essentially no warming (the “pause”).

The new RSS V4 adjustment alters the V3.3 adjustment, and now warms the post-2002 period, but does not diminish the extra warming in the pre-2002 period. Hence the entire V4 time series shows more warming than before

ren
February 26, 2019 2:40 am
Earl
February 26, 2019 8:20 am

I have to ask a very stupid guy question: Why is 1981-2010 the median line? Most data that is charted is below the median line. What years are above? I’m thinking the charted numbers are satellite data? Observations before 1981, were acquired some other way?

John Tillman
Reply to  Earl
February 26, 2019 9:52 am

Earl,

NOAA uses a moving 30-year baseline average. In 2021, it will move to 1991-2020.

Dedicated satellite observations began in 1979, but satellite imagery goes back to the ’60s.

Johann Wundersamer
February 27, 2019 2:29 am

Chavie,

my boss asked me

” why do you talk “February is not over,””

when you spell “Jänner”.

Jänner, Februar, März, April, Mai, Juni, Juli

instead of

Januar, Februar, Marcius, neugeborene Länmchen springen, maius, June, Jule, August, Sept ember, Oct ober,

My boss. Der alte Fischkopf.

Asks me.

“Why is it Jänner, Februar, März

and not jannuary, february, marcio, aprilos . ..

Guess. Why.

John Tillman
February 27, 2019 8:32 am

Antarctic sumer sea ice minimum will also be higher this year than for the past two, super El Nino-affacted seasons.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

David Dirkse
Reply to  John Tillman
February 27, 2019 8:53 am

“El Nino-affacted seasons”

Is english your 2nd language?

John Tillman
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 27, 2019 9:34 am

No, but I’m prone to typos on laptops and phones. “A” for “e” maybe because I was being sure to type “affected” rather than “effected”.

Bindidon
February 28, 2019 3:02 pm

It may be very interesting for some to look at a change between two consecutive years, and to draw conclusions.

I prefer to have a more global look over longer time periods.

1. Arctic sea ice extent and area from SIDAS, colorado.edu (*), Jan 1979 – Jan 2019:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J1_KobBchTT43J_y_0Lff-KHs4VNSavM/view

2. Arctic sea ice volume from PIOMAS, washington.edu (**), Jan 1979 – Jan 2019:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xtRgxklJN4GT0kGp7We_J3ZbxdIajaSi/view

Maybe Javier still knows what he told us in Feb 2015, in Feb 2008 and in Feb 1996…

(*): ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/data/
(**): http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/PIOMAS.2sst.monthly.Current.v2.1.txt

Jeffro
Reply to  Bindidon
March 2, 2019 10:48 am

Thanks you just showed we are near the trend line…LOL!!!