the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Islands of Reason

Posted by Jeff Id on April 3, 2010

This is an update to the sea ice situation.  Yes,  I’m a sea ice watcher.  I keep waiting for it to melt away leaving us with nothing but corrosive liquid di-hydrogen monoxide.  It seems that climatologists must be reading the Air Vent and WUWT pretty regularly as they have just released their conclusions on what caused some of the sea ice loss in the Arctic.

A new study scheduled for publication in Geophysical Research Letters supports the earlier research on the importance of winds in shaping the fate of sea ice both year to year and over recent decades.

The authors, Masayo Ogi and Koji Yamazaki in Japan and John M. Wallace of the University of Washington, concluded that the combined effects of winter and summer wind patterns have accounted for half of the change in the minimum sea ice extent from one summer to the next and about a third of the overall downward trend in sea ice extent over the last three decades.

We’ve been saying that the minimum in 2007 was a result of winds and water flow for over a year now.   Of course the 1/3 or 1/2 numbers in the quoted paragraph are completely bogus in my opinion. I’m not saying fraudulent, there is a difference, but I’m extraordinarily skeptical of anyone who claims to know what percentage of sea ice was melted due to one effect or another.  It is almost guaranteed to be nothing but handwaiving with some loosely defined regressions for evidence.  Most of us are familiar with that trend in climatology – (some pun).

First, I’ve redone the video of polar sea ice.  When my harddrive crashed two months ago, it lost the saved videos and frame images so I re-downloaded all of the data generously provided by the NSIDC which does a nice job archiving, and have recreated the movie and plots from scratch. For the non – regulars, the videos and movies are created from the EASE grid NasaTeam data presented by the NSIDC – here. The circle in the center of the ice is an area where the satellites can’t see due to their chosen orbits.

In 2007 we hit a record sea ice minimum in the Arctic for 30 years of satellite data.  This is about as surprising as rolling snake eyes because of the very short time when records were kept.  It turns out that there weren’t many satellites in 1910 but in the world of cliamtology we had predictions of an ice free pole in 5 years.  Of course, the pole has been ice free in the last century so it’s another yawn but there is no money for yawning.

If you just want to see recent years, I’ve done that as well in a higher resolution and half speed.

Anomalies for this post are calculated using the standard method.

It looks like the alarmists are right that sea ice is disappearing so the anomaly makes a nice plot.  What I like to do is offset the anomaly by the average amount of sea ice so that the reader can take the magnitude of the decline into proper context.

That looks a little different.  The red line in the above plot is the average sea ice extent over the entire record.  You can see the most recent point is near the zero average.  Of course this is the Air Vent so the global warming advocacy crowd – in this case also from the NSIDC – deserves a  shot.  Fortunately, the climategate situation has not slowed the scientists one bit, the newspapers are another story.  Teasing them requires little more than putting their quotes next to the graphs.

It’s called freaky Arctic weather. “All of the action is in the Bering Sea,” Serreze said. “For the past several weeks, we’ve been under a rather unusual weather pattern, a cold pattern, that’s given us this late spurt in ice growth in the Bering Sea. If you look at the rest of the Arctic Ocean proper, it is very warm.”

The Bering Sea, between Alaska and Russia, is caught between two low-pressure systems.

“This is weather,” said Serreze. “Don’t conflate this with climate.” Serreze notes that on the Atlantic side of the Arctic, ice is low.

And another quote from Serreze

“Once the winds change, temperatures change, we’ll probably lose it pretty quickly.”

As you can see in the video, Dr. Serreze is absolutely correct.  The ice will melt — soon.  It’s part of a conspiracy that we who are not part of the government global warming industry call — summer.

Antarctic anomaly has an increasing trend and is very low right now.

And the offset version.

Not exactly scary is it.

Global sea ice is sitting at a near average level also.

Of course the global sea ice level has been pretty well average for the entire record.

So there you have it, no doom this year on sea ice.  I think it’s appropriate to put a quote from one of the linked articles below.

Memo to media:  Ignore the misreporting on the Arctic that focuses on sea-ice extent or area.  The big Arctic news is the staggering decline in multiyear ice — ice volume. No study has yet been published undermining our understanding that human emissions are the primary cause of that long-term decline — a decline that shows no sign of reversal.

Ya see, when studying religion there is no argument which cannot be redirected.  Since the extent and area won’t change, and it is assumed that AGW cannot be exaggerated, we switch direction to talk about total volume.  Trust me folks, if trees are a proxy for temperature, extent is a proxy for total ice.  The reason the scientists have switched tack is because they know that the extent isn’t doing what they predicted and they know the huge loss of ice in the Arctic due to weather pattern changes caused a low minimum in 07 and 08, eliminating a lot of multi-year ice. So there are two plots presented at this link.

First actual data.

Not a particularly long record is it… Then they present the new — scare you out of your money plot.

Note the second graph is modeled data, not real data.  The articles claim that 09 is the lowest multi-year ice on record, currently having not read the study and having watched the videos, I’m skeptical of that also. The record is too short and of too low a quality to make that a significant claim either way.  We should feel bad for the sea ice guys though as the multi-year ice is the only island of reason remaining for this particular advocate group.  They should be pleased that Gaia has provided them this opportunity, because the only reason that this island remains is due to a recent 06,07,08 Arctic weather pattern clearly visible in the videos above.

Finally, please don’t consider this post a prediction of the future, it is only a recognition of the past, and the uncomfortable position that the (all too deserving) scientists have put themselves in.  Unlike modelers, we’re not in the business of fortune telling.


52 Responses to “Islands of Reason”

  1. Arn Riewe said

    You have to love Serreze

    “This is weather,” said Serreze. “Don’t conflate this with climate.” Serreze notes that on the Atlantic side of the Arctic, ice is low.

    i.e. – Dismiss the growth of the Bering Sea (that’s weather) but pay attention to the Atlantic (implying that’s climate). Refer to NSDIC or Cryosphere Today. The only below normal ice is in the St. Lawrence and Baffin/Newfoundland segments, below 60N.

    I’m constantly amazed of the NSDIC cheerleading for a disaster.Gubment money must be a nice thing to receive.That way you never have to say your sorry when you get it wrong year after year.

  2. curious said

    “summer” – Jeff, too funny!!🙂

    Don’t forget this jem from Steig et al 2009:

    “Simulations using a general circulation model reproduce the essential features of the spatial pattern and the long-term trend, and we suggest that neither can be attributed directly to increases in the strength of the westerlies. Instead, regional changes in atmospheric circulation and associated changes in sea surface temperature and sea ice are required to explain the enhanced warming in West Antarctica.”

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2009/Steig_etal.html

    And in the paper they concluded:

    “This warming trend is difficult to explain without the radiative forcing associated with increasing greenhouse-gas concentrations.”

    Mind you that was before the Corrigendum they issued:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7256/full/nature08286.html

    though I didn’t see references to how the new 0.2degC/century trend related to greenhouse gases:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7256/fig_tab/nature08286_T1.html

    Sorry to repeat old stuff but thought it worth a mention in the context of Serreze’s comments.

  3. frankbi said

    Jeff Id:

    What I like to do is offset the anomaly by the average amount of sea ice so that the reader can take the magnitude of the decline into proper context.

    Great method, Jeff! Indeed, Using the exact same method, I was able to show that the so-called “Global Financial Crisis” is nothing more than a hoax! To quote myself:

    If you can solve a financial crisis by altering the scale of a graph axis, will you do it? Now, a Dow Jones plunge of about 500 points may sound like a lot, and it may even actually hurt your savings, but if you look at it the right way then perhaps it’s not so bad after all! Really! :-B

    Foreclosure problems? Can’t find a job? Nah nah nah, all this is nothing but Communist propaganda! As Monckton might say, there is no financial crisis, there will be no financial crisis, and there never was any financial crisis! And as Crikey said,

    It’s disappointing that Crikey, like others in the liberal media, have fallen for the nonsensical line that the so-called “financial crisis” is either real or requires urgent action. Anyone who disputes this claim, which is advanced with evangelical fervour by its advocates, is howled down as a heretic and a “denialist”. The days of the witch-hunt are truly back.

    That job loss which you’re ‘experiencing’ is nothing more than a figment of your imagination imposed on you by evil lizards disguised as Jews controlling the UN headquarters. Oh, and make sure you look under your bed.

  4. frankbi said

    http://iji2.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/wall-street-crisis-cancelled/

  5. DG said

    The same has been done with OHC. It is not increasing as climate model predictions dictated, so the new axiom is it is bypassing the upper 700m and hiding in the lower 2000m (and below?) using less than certain methodologies to measure it; the ubiquitous heat “in the pipeline”.

    “If you aren’t measuring heat content in the upper ocean, you aren’t measuring global warming.”- Josh Willis

    That is soooo old science.

  6. frankbi said

    But DG, the financial crisis hoax, what about the financial crisis hoax?

  7. DG said

    Frankbi,

    I’d say it was a brilliant success. Two car companies, banks, mortgage institutions, student loans, healthcare (did I omit some?)…..now owned and operated by Obamacare Plus. A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.

    The financial crisis definitely is “in the pipeline”🙂

  8. GregO said

    Jeff Id,

    Great work – thanks for all you effort in showing the ice as well as showing the AGW predictions.

    Perhaps I just don’t understand this catastrophic Arctic ice melt thing though…can anyone explain to me why a partial or even total melting of Arctic ice would be a bad thing or a catastrophically bad thing? Let’s see if I can sort of think this thing through myself (fade to dream sequence as GregO starts up his brain…)

    “I suppose part of it is how rapidly the ice melts, because it could interfere with the thermohaline circulation (THC)if it melted rapidly and according to my reading on THC interruption that would result in …. cooling. Hmm. A bunch of Arctic ice better not melt fast; it could get real cold and … re-freeze the ice? Hmm…better keep an eye on that melting ice thing…maybe send some Brits up there to hike around take a look. Polar bears. Hope the Brits have (big) guns; Polar bears eat people. Maybe there’s just “Rotten Ice” and according to AGW experts, “When it goes it will go fast.” Wow. Scary. No Arctic Ice. Man I’m going to miss that ice. This could be as bad as butterflys hatching a week early. OMG. Winter comes and no new ice forms. The entire Arctic circle becomes a temperate wasteland with no ice – just pretty flowers and tan colored polar bears. People might move north and start digging stuff up; making stuff; growing stuff; and sailing around the Arctic sea and selling said stuff! Nightmare. Maybe a bunch of Greenland’s ice will melt too…now we have sea level rise. Better shore up those dikes and/or move inland. Note to self – don’t invest in seaside properties/keep and eye on northern Canada real estate prices…could be some good deals coming after all that ice is gone. Maybe only half the ice melts. Maybe none of it melts. Maybe it grows without bound. Wait. That’s a really bad thing that growing without bound. That would be a problem. Greg returns from thought experiment…..”

    Sorry about the lame attempt at sarcastic humor, but really now; so what if a bunch of ice melts in the Arctic? It’s really a question of how much, how fast, and how would we adapt. It’s just so ironic that with Climategate and all that this year the ice is extending.

  9. frank said

    Advocates of CAGW certainly exaggerate all of the bad news and ignore all of the good news. This isn’t a reason to suggest that information in a science paper is bogus. The paper, since you obviously haven’t read it, can be found at: http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d2/masayo.ogi/2009GL042356-pip.pdf

    In Figure 1, there are some very nice maps showing the anomaly in arctic summer and winter wind patterns multiplied by the anomaly in sea ice extent. The maps clearly show that reduced sea ice extent is associated with stronger winds blowing towards the North Atlantic. These maps would be worth posting on your site. The regressions show that about 50% of the variation in sea ice extent can be explained by how closely winds reflect the pattern in Figure 1. It isn’t clear to me how one can perform a “loosely defined regression” – the numbers must come from a defined location. In this case, they consider winds over the ocean everywhere north of 65 degrees. If they had considered winds from the most relevant areas in Figure 1, perhaps the correlation would have been stronger. However, with wind from an infinite combination of grid cells to choose from and only 30 years of ice data, it would be easy to overfit the data. Nevertheless, a careful effort to localize the most relevant winds might have been undertaken (or may be in the future).

    The 50% and 33% figures are mathematical results that should be included in the abstract of any such paper of this type. The authors certainly don’t claim that global warming is responsible for the rest of the variation. We can all wave our hands about the meaning of these numbers. If other factors influencing sea ice are positively correlated with the wind anomaly, the influence of the wind will be exaggerated. If negatively correlated, the influence of the wind will be under-estimated. Factors that might co-vary with winds blowing ice out of the Arctic could include temperature, cloud cover, and currents. At the moment, the evidence that wind is extremely important seems sound and far more convincing than anything I can find about temperature.

    Your movies remind me of something that most graphs miss: In the typical year, about 75% of sea ice melts. All the news about sea ice changes is almost invisible against this background of this unstoppable natural annual variation.

  10. frankbi said

    DG:

    Indeed! Indeed! Again, using the exact same method that Jeff Id used to analyse the sea ice data, I found that there never was any financial crisis! In reality, those who seem to jobless are actually not jobless at all! The state of ‘joblessness’ is nothing but an apparition created by Obama the Antichrist-Islamist-Communist! Evil genius indeed!

  11. Tony Hansen said

    If there were to be a major volcanic eruption in the NH (eg. VEI6+ with subsequent cooling) and sea ice area and extent reached record high levels; there would be no need to worry because it would only be ‘new’ ice and there would still be low levels of multi-year ice?

  12. […] Islands of Reason « the Air Vent […]

  13. Mike J said

    Stop Press: Arctic ice extent reaches greatest April extent in 8 years!

  14. co2fan said

    Latest ice data puts this Sept 09 Time/CNN warmist trash article into perspective.

    Studies of the Arctic Suggest a Dire Situation

    “Climate change is happening everywhere, but nowhere faster than in the Arctic, where annual temperatures in the far North are warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe. Sea ice on the polar cap is shrinking and permafrost is melting, putting animals like the polar bear — and the Arctic people who depend on them — in increasing danger.”

    Arctic people must depend on polar bears to be eaten.

    http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1920435,00.html?iid=sphere-inline-sidebar#ixzz0k5UdgXaz

  15. co2fan said

    Despite the recent ice data, the Time/CNN crew isn’t looking up from their pre-planned scare campaign. in this April 3, 2010 article they have a range of estimated costs from the melting icecaps. $2.4T to $24T That’s Trillions, a number we recognize easily in these Obama days.

    “Reports about the melting ice caps are distressing, but for the most part climate change remains abstract. The poor polar bear has been trotted out as the tangible face of global warming so often that we’re beginning to see “polar bear fatigue.” How about bringing the effects of Arctic melt close to home, as in what it will cost? A new study does just that, and the results are alarming, not just for Arctic dwellers but for all of us. According to lead author Eban Goodstein, Ph.D., over the next 40 years Arctic ice melt will take an economic toll of between $2.4 trillion and $24 trillion. Unless we change course — and fast.”

    http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1977563,00.html#ixzz0k5fAo03J

  16. Gaz said

    That’s great what you’ve done with those graphs.

    Using the same technique, and measuring my height from the center of the Earth rather than from the ground, I can demonstrate grpahically that I am almost exactly the same height as Shaquille O’Neal.

    Thanks guys.

  17. blob said

    “What I like to do is offset the anomaly by the average amount of sea ice so that the reader can take the magnitude of the decline into proper context.”

    Doesn’t that method hide the decline in summer minimum extent?

  18. DeWitt Payne said

    Re: Tony Hansen (Apr 3 17:41),

    About the volcano thing: see here.

    The effect may be the opposite of what you think. Pinatubo erupted in 1991 and not very long after, the AMO index and the UAH NoPol anomaly went strongly positive.

  19. […] Islands of Reason « the Air Vent […]

  20. […] Islands of Reason « the Air Vent […]

  21. Tony Hansen said

    Thanks DeWitt,
    I see Stenchikov names Pinatubo as the largest eruption in the 1900’s (not Novarupta).
    Maybe it depends on just what is being measured (and pre-satellite measures are what they are).

  22. Gaz:

    Using the same technique, and measuring my height from the center of the Earth rather than from the ground, I can demonstrate graphically that I am almost exactly the same height as Shaquille O’Neal.

    Indeed. In fact, I find that I am almost exactly the same height at the Eiffel Tower!

    The fundamentals of our economy are strong… are strong… are strong…

  23. frank.bi said

    DG:

    I’d say it [the financial crisis] was a brilliant success. Two car companies, banks, mortgage institutions, student loans, healthcare (did I omit some?)…..now owned and operated by Obamacare Plus. A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.

    Yeah, indeed, <a href="
    the whole ‘financial crisis’ thing was nothing but a hoax! As we all know, nobody ever lost their jobs in the ‘crisis’, even if they thought they lost their jobs! It was all an apparition created by Obama the Evil One in order to hinder McCain!

  24. Sera said

    Liquid di-hydrogen monoxide? That is hilarious- I’m calling it that from now on…

  25. Geoff Sherrington said

    Who could neglect a climate paper quoting an author named Rigor? Twice? Rigor, I. G., J. M. Wallace, and R. L. Colony (2002), Response of sea ice to the Arctic
    Oscillation & Rigor, I. G. and J. M. Wallace (2004), Variations in the age of Arctic sea-ice and summer
    sea-ice exten. These are in the paper that Frank says above was allegedly not read.

    Enough play on wrods. What does it really mean if sea ice moves around and shrinks and expands in extent or area or mass or thickness or bear-carrying capacity?

    The central theme is Global Warming and unless one can connect a permanent and new type of wind or current pattern PLUS explain a watertight cause for it, it’s a bit like counting the threads in you navel fluff. People have had variations in the threads in their navel fluff for generations. So what?

  26. Tony Hansen said

    Frank Bi,
    From the paper you cite –
    ‘….4. Conclusions and discussion
    We have shown results indicating that wind-induced, year-to-year differences in the rate of flow of ice toward and through Fram Strait play an important role in modulating September SIE on a year-to-year basis and that a trend toward an increased wind-induced rate of flow has contributed to the decline in the areal coverage of Arctic summer sea ice’.

    Fair dinkum!!! Who could’ve guessed that one?

  27. Carl Gullans said

    How do they determine sea ice volume (graph shown above)? I thought the whole reason for using area and extent was that they were proxies for volume… if volume could be measured, why would you care about anything else?

  28. frankbi said

    Tony Hansen:

    I think you’re talking about a different Frank, because the paper I cited clearly has a different message:

    If there is to be any attempt to mitigate this wholly fictional [financial] crisis, it should be done with moderate, balanced measures that take into account the needs of businesses and the importance of maintaining job growth and profit share. The fanatics urging us to take immediate action must be rejected.

    We should take no unilateral action, but await a comprehensive international agreement that includes the big financial emitters like China. To do otherwise would be to risk our own economy without having the slightest impact on the problem we’re trying to fix. Local jobs will be lost due to “bailout leakage” as firms simply move offshore to countries where taxpayer money is not being wasted propping up uncompetitive firms.

    Other industries will simply be wiped out due to massive increases in their costs arising from the additional tax burden. Our LNG (Lots of Noxious Gits) industry is particularly vulnerable.

    As Jeff Id hath shewn us with his earth-shattering graph scaling method, there never was any “financial crisis”.

  29. Jeff Id said

    #27,

    There are new instruments for volume. It can also be inferred from ice flow tracking over time and such but not very accurately.

  30. Adam R. said

    frankbi said: As Jeff Id hath shewn us with his earth-shattering graph scaling method, there never was any “financial crisis”.

    Haw-haw! This is too funny! What a wonderful Easter egg to find this morning.

    Way to go, Jeff Id; real WUWT-quality stuff:

    “What I like to do is offset the anomaly by the average amount of sea ice”

    Tee-hee-hee! Yer a laff riot, boy!

  31. Jeff Id said

    #30, I’ve got critics all over the place today. I don’t see a single one who has a good grasp of what I’m saying though.

    Let me ask you Adam, why do you consider it an unreasonable method? If you want to see how much the trend is affecting the total sea ice, how would you recommend doing it?

    Another reasonable question is – why does it get you so upset?

  32. PaulW said

    The ice volume chart at the end must have some unusual math/assumptions built into it. [Just eyeballing and trying to the replicate the volume estimates]:

    Let’s look at the last year 2004:

    – Max extent – 14.3M km2 times thickness 1.4 metres = 22,500 km3
    – Min extent – 6.0M km2 times thickness 1.3 metres = 7,800 km3

    Let’s go back to 1988:

    – Max extent – 16.1M km2 times thickness 1.9 metres = 30,500 km3
    – Min extent – 7.5M km2 times thickness 2.7 metres = 20,200 km3

    So, in the past the ice got thicker on average towards the end of the melt season.

    One could build a model where only the old multi-year ice survives and you could get numbers like this but it would not be a logical result – it would be an alarmist result.

  33. Adam R. said

    Jeff Id said: “Let me ask you Adam, why do you consider it an unreasonable method? If you want to see how much the trend is affecting the total sea ice, how would you recommend doing it?”

    Oh, no-o-o-o,dear boy–please keep trundling right along! I’m sure there are other series to which you can apply your, er, ‘revolutionary’ method. I wouldn’t dream of peeing in the punch.

    “Another reasonable question is – why does it get you so upset?”

    Heh. I guess in some universes, people laugh when they’re “upset”.

  34. Jeff Id said

    What a joke. I suppose that eliminating data you don’t like is ok with you too, as long as it supports AGW.

  35. Bob said

    This is an ironic blog, right? 😉

    REPLY, Why?

  36. […] scientists was released stating that arctic sea ice is susceptible to Arctic winds.  As the Air Vent blog points out, Dr. Serreze states that “once the winds change, temperatures change, we’ll […]

  37. […] Islands of Reason « the Air Vent […]

  38. DeWitt Payne said

    Re: PaulW (Apr 4 11:19),

    I think they’re assuming that the survival of first year ice depends on the presence of multiyear ice. The heat transfer properties of ice limits the thickness of first year ice to a maximum of ~2m and it will be thinner around the edges because it doesn’t have enough time to reach maximum thickness. Multiyear ice is thicker because compression causes floes to stack up on top of each other plus accumulated snow fall, or something like that. But with less multiyear ice, the first year ice is thinner at the minimum plus the contribution to the average thickness from multiyear ice is less.

    But if their first assumption is wrong, and the failure of 2008 and 2009 to set new lows in spite of having low multiyear ice, suggests it may be, then their model projections are invalid. If you look at the thirty year record for September average extent from NSIDC, the variability of the September average is large, ~0.5 Mm2 s.d., so unless the value this year is 1 Mm2 greater or less than the expected value, it’s not going to mean much. Don’t expect that to stop anyone from claiming that whatever it is, it supports their hypothesis.

  39. Fiction: Sea Ice is Increasing

    Antarctic sea ice has increased 0.5 million sq. km above that seen in late 1979 but Arctic sea ice has decreased by 1.0 million sq. km so there has been a net loss of sea ice globally. (NSDIC, 2009) Arctic sea ice extent is far more sensitive to warming by increased GHGs and there have been some studies that show Antarctica may expect an increase in sea ice due to increased evaporation and subsequent snowfall onto the sea ice.

    Sea ice thickness is rapidly decreasing, glaciers are retreating and losing volume, and both Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice mass. All of these are strong indicators of global warming. Do not be fooled!

  40. Jeff Id said

    #39, Scott

    Government funded myth,

    Sea ice thickness is rapidly decreasing

    See above post.

    It’s claims like this which give AGW science a bad name. Watch the video, sea ice is not thinning or loosing volume in any substantial way. That’s not to say it won’t in the future but my god man, look at the graphs and video. I don’t make up the data, this is what was measured.

    Sea ice comes and goes every year, get a grip.

    The Antarctic losing ice mass is an ignorant talking point. Sure it may go down or up, currently the data collected is very weak support of your claim. Do you have any idea how far below freezing Antarctica is – nearly 100% of the time?!! I didn’t think so.

    None of this denies global warming, what it does deny, and I strongly deny, is that any less than huge warming is going to melt the Antarctic land ice. It’s nothing but alarmist rubbish.

  41. curious said

    Scott – have a read of this thread:

    https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice-tony-b/

  42. Earle Williams said

    Jeff Id,

    You just need to borrow a line from the gurus who track economic indices. You are “correcting for seasonal variation” in your offset graphs. 🙂

  43. The last link in my post shows MEASURED ice thicknesses from subs since 1958 and also current thicknesses from ICESat. Seems to be a better indicator than eyeballing a video, don’t you think? It also shows Arctic sea ice extent since 1953. Take a look. 🙂

  44. Jeff Id said

    #43 pre sat ice extent is not reliable nether are a few measurements. Nobody’s claiming that there isn’t less now in the Arctic than 30 years ago. Just that it nearly all melts every year and nearly all comes back. What you don’t seem to realize is that it’s not likely that the trend is a result of warming.

  45. PhilJourdan said

    Sera #24 – Dont laugh too hard! A couple of social scientists got a lot of people to sign a petition banning it, by basically calling it that, and describing its corrosive effects! It happened in LA.

  46. curious said

    More recent Rothrock paper using only digital sub survey data for 1987 to 1997:

    “The arctic ice thickness anomaly of the 1990s: A consistent view from observations and models”
    D. A. Rothrock, J. Zhang, and Y. Yu
    J. Geophys. Res., 108(C3), 3083, doi:10.1029/2001JC001208, 2003

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/sample_articles/cr/2001JC001208/2001JC001208.pdf

    OTTOMH I’ve got reservations about the validity of comparing route averaged drafts for differing (random?) routes. Fig4 looks like it could inform the videos a bit as winter 92, winter 94, summer 95 and summer 97 at least have an approx. common portion to the routes.

    Dataset available at NSIDC here: http://nsidc.org/data/g01360.html

  47. Kwok, R., & Rothrock, D.A. (2009). Decline in arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESat records: 1958 – 2008, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L15501, doi:10.1029/2009GL039035.

    Rothrock, D.A., Yu, Y., and Maykut, G.A. (1999). Thinning of the arctic sea-ice cover. Geophysical Research Letters, 26(23): 3469-3472.

  48. curious said

    Thanks Scott – just to clarify, I chose the 03 paper as it overlaps with the period Jeff has created video for and it only uses digital submarine datasets so avoids the potential issues of compatibility with manually transcribed historic sets. It also includes comparison to modelled results and fig 9 illustrates the errors.

  49. stepanovich said

    Sea ice comes and goes every year, get a grip.

    The Antarctic losing ice mass is an ignorant talking point. Sure it may go down or up, currently the data collected is very weak support of your claim. […]

    Indeed! Indeed! And again, using the exact same method as Jeff Id, we show that the so-called “financial crisis” is nothing but an optical illusion conjured up by Barack HUSSEIN Obama the Marxist to, well, do Marxist things.

    As Jeff Id has shown us: THERE NEVER WAS ANY FINANCIAL CRISIS! THERE NEVER WERE ANY JOB LOSSES! DO NOT BE FOOLED!

  50. Jeff Id said

    #49, Ok,ok, I’ll bite. You beat me down.

    The difference between your ridiculous analogy and this is that nobody is claiming Sea ice didn’t shrink, just that it didn’t shrink very much. In your example, we have a society where job losses mean people without income and without the ability to get income. 10% jobless is a very sick economy in my experience. The shrinking of the economy crushed whole industries and put numerous companies out of business. The shrinking of ice, did nothing!

    The honesty in presentation here, as well as the conclusion, clearly stated intent with data presented both ways makes it a little different, don’t you think?

    You are right about Obama being a marxist though.

  51. crazy bill said

    None of this denies global warming, what it does deny, and I strongly deny, is that any less than huge warming is going to melt the Antarctic land ice. It’s nothing but alarmist rubbish.

    “why is the Antarctic so cold?”

    “Ah, that’ll be all the ice down there”

    “so how can the ice melt?”

    “Ah, you’d have to warm it up”

    “How can you warm the Antarctic when it’s so b***dy cold?”

    “Ah, you’d need to take the ice away”

    “well, it’s not going to go away by itself!”

    “Isn’t half of Antarctic actually beneath sea level?”

    “well, not quite. but yeah, quite a bit.”

    “Maybe that ice will float away…”

    “ungrounded speculation!”

  52. Gary said

    Arctic ice always melts in summer and refreezes in winter. But over the years, more of the ice is lost to the sea with less of it recovered in winter. climate warming is also coming larger and faster than the models are predicting and nobody’s really taken into account that change yet. We’re headed towards a problem in the future unless we do something about it. Get your sunscreen ready

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: