By P Gosselin on 27. March 2024
Winter sea ice in Arctic stable over past 20 years…has even recovered somewhat.
Hat-tip: Klimanachrichten
Arctic sea ice extent as recorded by Germany’s Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) in Bremerhaven, Germany, looks at the situation in January 2024. Despite the record temperatures reported, the ice in the Arctic has recovered somewhat.
The slight recovery trend since the Arctic minimum was reached is continuing at the beginning of 2024, with the sea ice extent at the beginning of the year below the average value for the years 1981 – 2010, but in the lower range of the extreme values (minimum / maximum) of this international climate normal period (Figure 1).
If we look at the new reference period 1991 – 2020 introduced by the World Meteorological Organization in 2021, January 2024 is roughly in line with the mean value of this period (see interactive graphic). The average Arctic sea ice extent in January was 13.99 million square kilometers, around 400,000 square kilometers greater than the ice cover in January over the last 20 years (Figure 2). During the month, the extent increased by approximately 29,000 square kilometers per day, which was slower than the average increase from 1981 to 2010.”
Image: Screenshot Meereisportal.de
Among highest in past 20 years
The above chart indeed shows a stable trend over the past 2 decades. According to the AWI:
This year’s maximum sea ice extent most likely occurred on February 27, at 14.94 million square kilometers. The monthly average ice extent in February was 14.65 million square kilometers.”
That makes it higher than 15 of the past 20 years.
Compared to the long-term average for the years 2003 – 2014, it is noticeable that the sea ice cover in the northern Barents Sea is lower, but the Greenland Sea and the northern Baltic Sea in the Gulf of Bothnia and the coastal zones of the Barents Sea have more extensive sea ice areas. This indicates lower and longer-lasting cold periods in these regions.”
According to NSIDC, Arctic topped at 15.094 Wadhams on March 11th.
OSI has it at 15.053 Wadhams on March 12th
MASIE has it at 15.18 Wadhams on March 12th
The September minimum extent trend is flat since 2007 and up since 2012.
” The minimum extent trend is flat since 2007 and up since 2012. ”
Sorry, this is not correct.
According to the data
https://masie_web.apps.nsidc.org/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/data/
you see the following graphs for
(1) absolute values:
Trends in Mkm² / decade
1979-2024: -0.53 ± 0.112007-2024: -0.39 ± 0.492012-2024: -0.44 ± 0.82As always: the shorter the period observed and/or the higher the deviations in it, the higher the standard error. Trends whose standard error is greater then themselves are not significant. A switch to anomalies de-seasonalizing the time series might be helpful.
(2) anomalies wrt the mean of 1981-2010:
Trends in Mkm² / decade
1979-2024: -0.52 ± 0.012007-2024: -0.26 ± 0.082012-2024: -0.18 ± 0.13If you think I’m wrong: Feel free to download the same data, do the same job and come back with your results.
Your chart shows anomalies for all months. The claim was specific to minimum extent, which occurs in September.
Apparently, you didn’t take the time to read the head post.
Both showing a highly beneficial recovery from the extreme high of 1979…
And then showing the levelling off in the last decade or two..
…. at a level far higher than the Holocene norm.
Great to have you on the side of the REALISTS. 🙂
Also….. what you have graphed shows ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to contradict Milo’s statement.
Milo’s statement is actually correct.
FAIL !!! (as usual)
bnice2K: you lie.
No.. YOU are the one who is incapable of reading or comprehending what Milo said.
“The September minimum extent trend is flat since 2007 and up since 2012.”
Your chart DOES NOT contradict what he said in any way whatsoever.
The trend of the minimums since 2007 is as close as to zero as matters !.
From 2012 there is a slightly positive trend.
You are incompetent !!
“Despite record temperature increases”. ? Oh yeah? Take a look at the ocean.dmi.dk website which records Arctic temps since 1958 for 80N and above. For nearly 6 weeks in July August it briefly reaches maybe 2C. Awful we’re all gonna die. Then tap on 1958 and 2023. Identical. And every year in between , Ok I’ll admit excursions above the norm to say minus 20 from minus 27 etc – colour me unimpressed. Could one of you better informed guys explain this Arctic warming that gets so much MSM coverage?
Question not seen in the story: Is that air temperature or water temperature?
Deja vu all over again, Christopher “The Pause” Monckton is surely feeling the disturbance in the Force.
Then you don’t have anything to say against the article.
Cheers.
Sure about that? 🙂 This is POB all over again. Plain Old Bsing.
Your comment is the only BS here.
Thank you for admitting for a second time that you can’t refute the article.
You’re daydreaming again. TheFinalNail has pointed out (down) that the the graphics is not showing what the article claims it’s showing. Furthermore, masturbating about a local flat was a winning strategy last time with temperature, right? That’s what I was referring to by mentioning Monckton above. There’s variability and that inevitably results in regions in the graph where the local trend is flat. It’s incredible that I have to explain this especially after the Monckton-fiasco.
Another totally irrational, incoherent and incompetent post from the little nyolist.
You haven’t refuted anything, because you haven’t produced anything.. just whinging.
It is incredible that the poor child doesn’t remotely understand anything about maths or science.
Just another mindless muppet !!
Only thing that breaks the very long zero temperature trends are non-human forced El Nino events.
36 year out of the 45 years of UAH data are basically ZERO trend.
Monckton has been absolutely correct mathematically every time he has made a post on the zero-trend periods.
It is amazing how absolutely clueless and mathematically incompetent the AGW-cultists like little-nyolist really are !!
You really need to improve your comprehension of the English language, darling.
You are still at ZERO, math is sure hard for you…………
I read this article and immediately thought of our current PM Rishi Sunak. He is prone to claiming his inputs have wonderful outcomes. His time in office has seen a halving and more, of national inflation. This achievement he claims credit for despite all economic study saying it was inevitable. It suggests he will be looking for other good news stories to claim credit for now.
Maintaining stable ice cover in the Arctic must be on his radar, as no one has claimed credit for that yet and let us not forget, that 20 year stable state and slight uptick in ice, comes at a time when CO2 has steadily increased by about 40PPM over the period.
To be fair to Sunak, he did say he would control migration, true to his word that has gone up considerably.
Animal House 1978
.
Vacillating between Northern and Southern hemisphere temperatures is no way to prove ‘global warming’
And btw.. the “recovery” of the Arctic has been the decrease in sea ice since the debilitating extreme highs of the LIA and late 1970s, which forced Arctic sea life out of the Arctic.
Arctic sea ice is still well above what it has been for nearly all the last 10,000 years, but at least now, some sea life is just starting to return to areas where it was once prolific.
Please do not play the AGW-scammers game and say that increasing sea ice is a “recovery”
My thoughts exactly – the best thing for this planet would be for all the Arctic ice to melt and put that water back into circulation and to let more of the Arctic sea life get some 🌞
Would you Adam &
EveWadham it (believe it)?If the ice was really doomed would you see this?
The long-dead woolly mammoth will make its return from extinction by 2027, says Colossal, the biotech company actively working to reincarnate the ancient beast.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/animals/a42708517/scientists-reincarnating-woolly-mammoth/
“The long-dead woolly mammoth will make its return from extinction by 2027, says Colossal, the biotech company actively working to reincarnate the ancient beast.”
……as well as the dodo bird (Mauritius), the passenger pigeon (USA), and the Tasmanian tiger (a.k.a.Thylasine — Australia) and others.
I wonder if bringing back the passenger pigeon is such a good idea because I seem to recall reading that they ravaged farmers’ crops back in the day. That is why they were driven to extinction in the first place.
Yahoo! from the polar bears and yikes! from the seals! So, why the step-wise, or inflection, change in 2004 to 2005? A moderate El Niño was ending and a moderate La Niña was starting, so nothing special there. Pacific and Atlantic oscillators? In 2004 President G.W. Bush was re-elected, beating the Democrat candidate John (Ketchup) Kerry, who then decided to go on a Climate Change campaign. Maybe? Initial mis-fire?
“So, why…”
The key difference between a sceptic and a believer: We sceptics want to know why, the believers believe and have already closed their minds. Big mistake.
That chart shows February, not January.
That chart shows February, not winter.
Here is Arctic winter (Dec-Feb) Sea Ice Extent over the past 20 years according to NSIDC – with linear trend.
What’s about that ?
Marked decrease.
Yes, you are showing a marked decrease in intelligence.
Here’s your chart with linear trend….
Except it is NOT linear..
The RECOVERY from the extreme, debilitating high of 1979 has unfortunately levelled off… at a level far above the Holocene norm.
But at least some sea creatures have been able to return.
Why do you hate Arctic sea-life so, so much. !!!
Maximum this year was slightly higher than the maximum in 2005 and only fractionally less than 2024.
Average last year was only a tiny amount lower than in 2007…
… Looks like Arctic sea ice is very stable, and has been for a couple of decades.
Get over it.
Annual average annual Arctic Sea Ice extent, 2007-2023, with trend:
Why would you average all of the months together? The ice undergoes important changes that are different for each season, which you want to track separately.
fungal has used a tiny portion of the vertical axis.
Don’t be fooled by its graphical malfeaces.
“fungal has used a tiny portion of the vertical axis.”
A common trick to lose a trend to the naked eye is to expand the y axis. I’ve seen you and yours do it over and over. Thankfully, the rate of loss has been quantified in other posts.
Yes, I wish that the standard error of the trend had also been posted. But its expected value is quite inconvenient for you.
Not what he meant, blob.
Trendology is lost if they don’t abuse statistics…
“Not what he meant, blob.”
It’s exactly what he meant. But feel free to tell us what alt.explain he might have.
And apparently in underworld, and only in underworld, is evaluating the standard error of a trend is an “abuse” of statistics
Those are annual data, not monthly.
It was bnasty who introduced monthly averages, not me.
Why did you not question him?
Thanks for confirming that the average is stuck within a VERY NARROW BAND….
…so narrow that you have to use a massive expansion of a non-zeroed axis.
You are not fooling anyone but yourself with your petty attempts.
Here is the chart with average daily extent since 2005 shaded..,
Anyone can see JUST HOW STABLE it has been the last 20 years..
Also shaded the maximums, and even minimums (more affected by weather events) shaded in showing how narrow the bands are.
Anyone can see JUST HOW STABLE it has been the last 20 years..
Yeah the numbers are similar from year to year since 2007 thus a flat trend which means no decline anymore.
It is commonly between 4.0 to 5.0 at the minimum with some above 5.0
LINK
Bad link here is the correct LINK
Best fit a declining sinusoidal trend to your average data, optimizing for period and amplitude, or for the period and amplitude for any imagined “oscillations”. Feel free, but you don’t have to. I’ll throw all of the cards over. It’s a squiggly line version of TFN’s trend, probably with a slightly better standard error.
A trend line on an obviously oscillating value? What’s the matter, never quite got past high school math?
You really need to improve your comprehension of the English language, darling.
Here is the MASIE data… max, avg, min since 2006
Only a complete moron would say this is not STABLE.
And the OSI (Norwegian) sea ice data since 2005…
.. showing just how incredibly STABLE it has been.
NSIDC since 2005..
Showing the remarkable stability of Arctic sea ice during the last two decades.
Thank you – finally someone who fits a curve to a natural process instead of a simplistic trend line!
Lord Monckton, if you are reading, take note.
How long a trend is lasting, right, ’til it changes the direction.
Compare the trend up 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and compare the respective degree of decline.
A truncated series. Where are the rest of the years? Why did you stop at 2006? But it does indeed show 2005 was about the same as this year. 😉
Because the article I quoted twice specifically stated “20-years“. That brings us to 2006.
You’d need to ask the author of the above article why they chose that date, not me.
There’s a link to the data if you want to go back further.
Despite all that waffle CO2 is not far off from an all time low and there is no crisis.
Or rather, any crisis that exists is strictly between the ears.
Why is an ice free in summer Arctic Ocean such a bad thing? It won’t affect sea levels. Fish, Fauna and sea Flora will have a large area to exploit. It’s by no means certain Polar Bears would suffer any major issues.
Seems a non-problem
In the CAGW narrative, the lower albedo of ice free water will accelerate global warming. Actually, regardless of the CAGW narrative, the positive albedo feedback from global snow and ice is one of the important factors affecting the onset of glaciations and interglacial maxima.
Of course, in the false CAGW narrative the evil CO2 causes the ice-free Arctic, climate feedbacks are overwelmingly positive, every disturbance is amplified, climate is unstable and goes to scorching hell.
Ice quickly gets dirty as soot and dust fall on it.
Combine that with the fact that at the low angles of incidence found in Arctic regions, most of the incoming sunlight is reflected, not absorbed.
What you get is that the albedo differences between ice, especially multi-year ice, is barely different from open water.
Add to that the fact that ice is a good insulator, so that open waters are able to release their heat into the atmosphere and from there into space much more efficiently, and you discover that the loss of sea ice is a very powerful negative feedback. Not the positive one that the doom and gloomers have been preaching.
But there’s hardly any multiyear ice left. Back around ’79 about 30% of the ice was over four years old, now it’s about 3%.
Back around 1979, the earth was colder than it had been at any time since the end of the little ice age.
Yes.. we know 1979 was a time of extreme and debilitating Arctic sea ice extent, that forced Arctic sea life out of the region.
Why do you hate Arctic sea life ???
Why does reporting the facts mean that I “hate Arctic sea life”?
Because you obviously think having huge overwhelming extents of sea ice that push the sea creatures out of the Arctic is a good think
Despicable and anti-life.. Typical leftists.
“Because you obviously think having huge overwhelming extents of sea ice that push the sea creatures out of the Arctic is a good think”
Where have I said anything that even remotely suggests that?
“Ice quickly gets dirty as soot and dust fall on it.”
No, arctic ice and snow are relatively clean, as they are far away from global dust and soot sources. Sure, somebody will point to pollution of Arctic by Norilsk factories, but this is minor. Bigger issue is periodic Earth desertification at the end of each glacial minimum. Global dust storms induce ice and snow melting, facilitating the onset of interglacial maximum. This happens roughly once every 100k years, not relevant now.
By making navigation in Arctic waters easier, an ice free Arctic would reduce shipping costs.
It would also make accessing the oil much easier.
Arctic has had a LOT LESS sea ice than now for nearly all the last 10,000 years..
Arctic sea creatures LOVED it !!
Some are only now returning after not being around, or there being evidence of, since the end of the MWP. !
Surely this is a VERY GOOD thing. !!
Winter 2005/06, to be precise.
And this graph shows just REMARKABLY STABLE the Arctic sea ice has been over that period.
Only the min level wavers outside a very narrow band…
… but that’s to do with WEATHER events.
This happens all of the time to me. Someone else cherry-picks data. I point out that their cherry-pick doesn’t say what they said it says and then suddenly another person jumps and starts gaslighting me by saying I’m the one that did the cherry-picking. That’s what leefor is doing to you here.
Yea I know how it works, only the date ranges that support your argument are free from cherry picking.
How many times does it have to be said that the date range is specific to that used by the author of the article?
Does it ever sink in?
Poor badwax.. you get gaslit because you are stuck in brain-numbed miasma of your own idiocy.
Arctic sea ice has levelled off after a recovery from the extreme high of 1979.
Max, min and average have each been in narrow +/- bands that show that it has been very stable for the last 20 or so years.
Time you woke up to reality of what the measurements actually show.
It certainly hasn’t been stable for the last 20 years, the ice has got younger and thinner resulting in a significant loss of volume.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=119.0;attach=389346;image
ROFLMAO.. even your pitiful gravity-based fabricated graph shows it has levelled off over the last decade or more.
FAIL.. as usual !!
The ice thinning process started back in the late 1990’s the 2012 storm wiped out most of the remaining older sea ice now it is nearly 12 years later the extent is higher now than it was in 2007.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2022/05/Figure4.jpg
All that old thick ice that was in the ocean has gone only a small remnant against the shoreline is left, hence the pause.
Why don’t YOU look at the annual minimum numbers the lowest was in 2012 mainly due to a powerful storm the next lowest was in 2020 at about 4.0 the decline has stopped since 2007 which is 16 full years it hasn’t gone below 4.0 otherwise as it is oscillating mainly between 4.25 to 5.25 range.
“the decline”
… since the extreme high of 1979 is actually a “recovery”, but only slightly toward more normal Holocene levels.
It has been totally natural, and highly beneficial to all Arctic sea life.
I’ll analyze any date range you want me to. Are you then going to gaslight me (like you did here and here) and feign like I’m the one who picked the dates?
You are a moron..
You are off the original topic, and attempting to gaslight others by whinging like a little child, saying they are gaslighting you.
A very feeble way of arguing .. to be expected when you have nothing else to back up your nonsense.
But hey, beeswax has a list of “algebra errors” he can show you.
I have seen all the numbers even posted the link to it which you apparently ignored,
LINK
This is what I mean. You say you’ve seen all the numbers and that I am ignoring them. The problem is that the link you posted doesn’t have all the numbers. All of the numbers are at this link which I download monthly. That is what gaslighting is. You indict me of an act of incorrectness when it was actually you that committed the act you accuse me of. Look, I’m not here to have a war of words with you. I’m here to discuss the science. If you want to discuss the science and facts then great. If you just want to gaslight me then I’ll pass. I’ll grant you the last word here.
In your reply to TheFinalNail, it was YOU who brought up the topic of gaslighting. If you want to discuss science, then discuss science.
I’d love to discuss the science. Let’s do that now.
Over the last 20 years…
Arctic sea ice area has declined at a rate of -0.2e6 km2/decade
Arctic sea ice extent has declined at a rate of -0.3e6 km2/decade
Oscillations.
I also refer you to bnice2000’s correct usage of polynomials above.
I agree that the leveling out of Arctic sea ice decline is part of multi-year oscillation not unlike the pause-up-pause-up pattern with temperatures except for sea ice it is pause-down-pause-down. The down step will resume at some point within the next 10 years. I’m confident in this because I’m confident that the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics are fundamental. There is a large positive planetary energy imbalance and that energy will dispatch into the cryosphere eventually. Why so long? Because the previous down step was very dramatic. It was so dramatic that even in 2023 with a leveling off extending 10+ years we are still well below the predictions the IPCC published in 2001. They said Arctic sea ice would not decline below 10.5e6 km2 until 2040. It first happened in 2007 and then 8 other times since. 2023 ending at 10.5e6 km2 is still 17 years ahead of their prediction. What we are seeing right now is a reversion to the trend line not unlike how temperatures revert toward the trend line after extreme perturbations above/below it. And just like temperatures cannot resist the upward push so too will sea ice fail to resist the downward push as a result of the 1LOT and 2LOT. It is inevitable.
I find your perspective to be too deterministic. Arctic sea ice extent has a direct influence on the planetary imbalance, so if it starts to increase over time, it will reflect more shortwave radiation back to space. The second law of thermodynamics doesn’t necessarily equate to future warming, as there are factors that can disrupt and overwhelm the tendency towards equilibrium. Regarding the IPCC and its predictions, it sounds like they got it wrong. You are naive to attribute the large decline from decades ago to the positive imbalance. Underwater volcanoes, for example, can melt ice, which will also affect the imbalance through the loss of albedo.
And what do you consider to be a LARGE positive imbalance?
Arctic sea ice albedo isn’t the cause of the positive planetary energy imbalance. Increases in sea ice extent will certainly pull the imbalance down a bit, but not all of the way to zero. The planet is still going to warm meaning Arctic sea ice is still going to have a tendency for decline over the long term.
Yes. The IPCC was woefully incorrect in their Arctic sea ice predictions. In fact, they have a long record of struggling to keep up with the declines. Though I do think their latest prediction from AR6 of around 2050 for the first summer to drop below 1e6 km2 of extent is reasonable. And that’s their most aggressive prediction to date. In the 1990’s they were estimating 2100 or afterward.
Anything over +0.5 W/m2 I would consider large since that exceeds the forcing of a swing from solar grand minimum to maximum. Right now the imbalance is around +1.5 W/m2.
HA HA HA you still haven’t addressed anything I wrote here, and your link is very good but the link I posted has all the numbers for ALL of the regions showing increase and decrease in ice for the month of FEBRUARY it is clear you haven’t read the article which the title is:
Big Asian Chill Pushes Arctic Ice Over 15 Wadhams
You are not fooling anyone with your evasive LYING bullshit.
He’s learned a new word, though: “gaslighting”.
“This happens all of the time to me. “
Do you want some whine with that whinge?
And a nappy change ?
beeswax is down to whining, amusing.
Because that is when the Arctic sea ice levelled off, dolt !!
“That brings us to 2006.”
Even basic mathematics is really, really hard for you, isn’t it fungal. !
Take out the outliers and you have no trend. Since the beginning point and end point are approximately the same, I would think your trend is a statistical artifact and nothing more.
I guess if you exclude all the low-extent years and keep all the high-extent years it would have an impact on the trend.
Take out the one high year and two low years and you have no meaningful trend. That’s why small sample sizes make for bad conclusions. And what do those numbers actually mean in a physical sense? Do they mean the actual mass of ice? Is there a missing error bar?
We could extend that to the UAH data. Just remove all the warm years and we stop global warming! Why has no one thought of this?
Actually you could just use real data and go back 1000 years.
Don’t you know that any date range that doesn’t support the narrative is by definition, been cherry picked.
You are well aware by now that the El Ninos effects are the only warming in the whole UAH 45 years.
That means you have just admitted there is no human causation, and you have just totally destroyed your petty AGW-cult meme.. Well done.
Sounds like TFN doesn’t know what an outlier is. Either that or he once again can’t refute the claim.
And you are not using the data that is being referred to.
The data they use does indeed show a very stable Arctic for about 20 years.. (black line).
Yeah, I can see Daddy Monckton’s face lighting up with a broad smile.
The decline stopped that is the singular point of the article.
Stopped liked last time, yeah. We all know how that worked out for our poor peer.
It took a major El Nino to break the ZERO-TREND period from 2001-2015
It took another major El Nino to break the COOLING trend from 2016-2023.
Totally natural…. No human causation whatsoever.
The decline stopped after 2007 as the annual values have persistently oscillated mostly between 4.25 to 5.25 just two outliers one in 2012 due to a massive storm and the 2020 4.0 second lowest since 2007 all the rest falls in a narrow range.
The decline has stopped.
“The decline has stopped.”
The RECOVERY from the extreme high of 1979 has stopped..
Mores the pity.
Arctic sea creatures, and everyone living up there, could do with a more open Arctic for a longer period of time each year.
Now regardless of the fact that even a long pause wouldn’t imply an actual stop in the process, this above is just cherry picking. You arbitrarily delete two important data points ‘cos you don’t like the data. Congratulations.
You are typing rampant gibberish again, nyholist.
Your display of AGW-cult-idiocy is off the charts.
So you admit that you are too mathematically incompetent to understand the term “outlier”.
Or are you just an out and out LIAR !.
My vote is for both.
Why do I have to explain these things… You have to have a very good reason to exclude an outlier. Being “extreme” is not a reason in itself. Measurement or experiment errors (even their possibility) are the usual reasons. These here do not apply, obviously.
Another lie from you since I never deleted anything just pointed out their being different from the rest of the years since 2007 not only that I never disputed that there was a decline from the 1990’s either thus your dishonest “cherrypicking” gambit fails as I was pointing out a fact that the decline stopped after 2007 a reality you and others fight because it destroys your climate delusions.
I repeat what I posted,
As I made clear here, I never disputed the two low numbers.
Meanwhile the numerous NO summer sea ice forecasts made beginning in the first decade of 2000’s continues to be embarrassing failures for the climate cult.
LINK
Suggest you stop being a fool.
This is a big relief for almost everyone in our planet. I think there’s no debate that the data show decrease, right?
As it will this time, also. And the terminally brainless self-described ‘skeptics’ will fall for it, like kids in a candy store, all over again.
I can see we have another moronic brain-dead idiot.
Your comment is a ZERO as you didn’t address his chart.
What data are being referred to, though? The article says it’s “January” then says it’s “winter”; in fact, it’s showing February only. Not January. Not winter.
When you look at winter as a whole, which is what they are claiming, you get a clear reducing trend, not a stable one.
The graph that is indicated in the text.
Trend has levelled off in the last 20 years..
Face reality and GET OVER IT !!
Your flaccid attempts to say otherwise are making you look like a mindless brain-washed idiot.
So not the highlighted chart.
What an odd site this is.
Not sure why you would analyze with OLS. It’s pretty useless when it comes to nonlinear data. A Fourier analysis or a Wavelet analysis, for example, would be much better since they recognize oscillations.
Because it is the only tool in the trendologists’ toolbox.
Unfortunately, fungal isn’t the only “tool” !
See… at least 2 useless AGW-cult “tools”. !!
They derive great pleasure from pushing the minus sign.
Then can you produce such an analysis?
It’s certainly not useless, but I don’t disagree that there are other metrics that could be used. I will say that OLS is (or should I say was) viewed favorably by the WUWT community as that was the technique used by Monckton to show that the warming had stopped…until, of course, it stopped stopping. I and many others (including TFN) tried to warn commenters that OLS is not the right tool for the job in determining whether global warming had really stopped. We were largely “ignored”. Perhaps next time you could voice your concerns with it the next time Monckton posts here?
I have been predicting for years that Arctic sea ice would be the cannary in the coal mine for the laughable CO2-AGW hypothesis. It’s not as easy to doctor as the temperatures (and other climatic indices) and it will turn around the first.
Arctic sea ice will follow the inverse of the AMO cycle..
Hopefully it will not grow too much as the AMO heads downwards… and make the Arctic unliveable for sea creatures again… like in the LIA and 1979..
AMO is just detrended North Atlantic SST. It’s arbitrary. But yes, AMO and Arctic sea ice will move roughly together. The difference is, the AMO is considered even by the consensus to be natural oscillation and when it starts cooling significantly, no problem for the consensus. When Arctic sea ice starts increasing significantly and longer term (~20-30 years), it’s “beginning of the end” of the BS.
I have come to view cause and effect to be the opposite. The AMO is driven by a natural Arctic sea ice cycle.
Not that it matters. Both views show it has nothing to do with CO2 levels.
Arctic sea ice decline started flattening in 2005 after the sun’s Modern Maximum ended in 2004.
Presently the longer term 109yr sunspot number average is only a few points below my decadal warming threshold, tending towards eventual cooling, juxtaposed and in competition with the relatively stronger solar cycle #25 ocean warming effect from SN now higher than the threshold.
This is an example of the solar influence being time-dependent and layered.
I consider the resumed sea ice stability to be an indirect, lagged, and integrated effect of the sun warming the ocean, aided by the amount of time while solar activity was low (in blue below) after 2004. Solar cycle 23 was two years longer than average, leading to a long, deep solar minimum in late 2008, followed by the weakest solar cycle in 100 years and then a normal solar minimum.
The 2023 warming by the stronger cycle #25 TSI hasn’t fully reached the Arctic. The sea ice grows until the tropical ocean warmth circulates into the Arctic, as sea ice is anti-correlated to NH SST.
Funny how one can get so many significant digits from an instrument that, as listed by NASA, has an error of 0.5% to 1.0% and only covers 99.95% of the spectrum (per NASA).
And then there’s this:
Story tip
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00932-w
27 March 2024
Climate change has slowed Earth’s rotation — and could affect how we keep time
The effect of melting polar ice could delay the need for a ‘leap second’ by three years.
By Elizabeth Gibney
I guess if the arctic is not really melting, then: Nevermind!
I bet I saw five or six different articles yesterday proclaiming that climate change was causing the Earth to slow down.
Now, if climate change could only do something about daylight savings time!
We measured a rotation rate change with the Japan earthquake a few years back.
We measures a rotation rate change from the Chinese hydroelectric dam (water).
Every time we construct a wind tower, the rotation rate changes. Think Olympic figure skater arms out, arms in.
Tonga ejected how many millions of gallons of water into the Stratosphere?
No one has measure that effect on the rotation rate.
Blaming it just on ice melt is unsubstantiated.
I wonder how much the rotation rate changed due to the multiple lava flows from many active volcanos. Or the FSK bridge collapse. Or the number of recent moon shots.
I agree. Have climate change do something about daylight savings time!
“Blaming it just on ice melt is unsubstantiated.”
Particularly since the current levels are only just a bit down from the extreme highs of the LIA….
and much higher than for most of the last 10,000 years.
red thumb .. cannot counter facts.
Pathetic as always…. is that you fungal ? !
The world must have spun out of control during the 1930’s arctic melting.
I wonder if they skipped a leap year back then?
I’m sure I have seen several statements that Arctic Ocean ice would be gone in some summer long ago.
Then, the goal was changed so that Zero no longer meant 0. (–> 1 M sq. km. now called a Wadham – – see the 1st comment by bnice)
97% of scientist would call this and inconvenient truth. Did you just hear and echo?
I wonder what poor Peter Wadham thinks of having a unit of sea ice mockingly named after him 🙂
Utter FAILURE when it comes to predictions
Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within four years | Climate crisis | The Guardian (from 2012)
Again. red thumb agrees with what I’ve just say….. just can’t face the facts.
Such a sad pathetic little worm.
I thought the ‘red thumpers’ were your friends judging by who they click on.
Al Gore . . . calling Al Gore . . . message for you: Get a clue!
This is very likely an, ahem, inconvenient truth for you.
The cycle switched around 2009 from its previous state that began in the late 1970’s, and will continue into the 2040’s..
Earth’s inner core rotating slower than surface, study suggests (Update) (phys.org)
One has to consider how the nickel iron core is affected by changes in the solar magnetic field, which is currently shifting.
Yes indeed, Earth’s magnetic field gliding through the Suns magnetic field is a complex.
Anyone willing to go on record as predicting that future sea ice extent minimums will stay above those already established?
Absolutely. The trend will rise over the next 30 years. It might not get back to the levels of the 1980s, but it will increase. This will lead to colder Arctic temperatures which will also cool the NH.
There is no reason to expect otherwise..
… unless you “believe” [twilight zone music] in the anti-science fantasies of the AGW-cult.
Anyone willing to go on record to say that the planet will never warm up as much as the so called climate models predict?
Me for one.
Are you willing, beeswax?
You need specificity on how to establish this metric and on how statistically durable it will be. Without the usual evasions of “Well, we’ll never know because of unknowable, systemic errors”.
You also need a stake. I suggest a public pronouncement for the loser, with no weasel words elsewhere. It need not be true. It should be embarrassing, but some here are quite resistant to that…
Yearly updated end of melt season snowline. The snowline integrates the competing effects of melt (increasing snowline elevation) and snow accumulation (decreasing snowline elevation).
Thus snowline provides a key holistic variable indicating climate change.
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20240327.png
Current average and minimum temperatures in the Arctic.
At the surface.
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=56;31;1&l=temperature-5cm&t=20240328/22&src=link
Straight lines on graphs of natural events always makes me think that someone, is missing something. I know its a trend but a TREND of a naturally variable set of data should really show some
variability?
The average thickness of arctic ice max extent in the 60s was about 8 meters. Today, it’s roughly half of that. You’ve got to look at ice volume
Great RECOVERY from abnormal highs leftover from the LIA.
What’s important for sea life in the Arctic is open water in summer.
Still far less than most of the last 10,000 years.
Did you know that DOE shows a big spike in the early 1960s.
Or does you ignorance continue to run sewer-deep. !
Where is that data for? Current values you have posted here show an annual mean of ~10 million km^2 not the 5- 7 million km^2 shown in that graph, clearly it’s not for the same area.
So after LOSING completely with 20-year high stability of Arctic sea ice extent…
… . you want to change to volume.
You really are a pathetic minor low-level trollette.
Looks like volume in 1940 was about the same as in 1998…. bit of a peak in your cherry-picked 1960s.
oh dear,, poor fungal and the beetroot-brain don’t like the facts.
Can’t counter the facts…
Pathetic as always.
And the volume has dropped a further 7,000 km^3 since 1998!
So you really do hate Arctic sea life. !! Ok !
No, not at all, although I’m not too keen on posters who constantly present incomplete data to support their position. Like the last two that you posted for example!