2006 had the second highest ice extent minimum in the JAXA record. 2011 continues to track it very closely.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- NASA Sea Level
- “getting smaller”
- “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- Technology Advances
- “The Hour Of Decision”
- “fair & equitable”
- Michael Mann Continues His War
- Time Travelling Satellites
- Time Traveling Satellites
- Adult Content On X
- The Climate Of 1923
- Arctic Report Card
- Green Colorado
- Hottest Summer Ever
- “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Record CO2 Growth
- Walz’s For Trump
- 6,000 Year Old Tree In The Austrian Alps
- Gemini Can See The Future
- Clinton To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Climate Intelligence Means “Making Things Up”
- Comedy From The BBC
- The Climate Afterlife
- Rewriting The Northern Hemisphere
Recent Comments
- arn on “getting smaller”
- Gordon Vigurs on “fair & equitable”
- Gordon Vigurs on Michael Mann Continues His War
- Gordon Vigurs on Michael Mann Continues His War
- Bob G on “getting smaller”
- arn on “getting smaller”
- Hank Phillips on “getting smaller”
- Francis Barnett on “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Scott Allen on “getting smaller”
- Bob G on “getting smaller”
2011 correlates well with pretty much every year in the JAXA record except 2007. Here are R^2 values for 2011 vs. other years using the data from June 1 through July 6:
2002 = 0.9791
2003 = 0.9910
2004 = 0.9852
2005 = 0.9833
2006 = 0.9845
2007 = 0.9587
2008 = 0.9900
2009 = 0.9732
2010 = 0.9863
2011 has actually done poorly in the last week or so according to JAXA. It had done poorly according to CT’s area metric several days prior to this, but the melt slowed down considerably according to CT after that, so I’m expecting a similar slowdown in JAXA soon. Last year, this was the time where the losses in JAXA really slowed down, allowing 2010 to “catch up” with 2008 and 2009. So don’t be surprised if something similar happens this year, particularly with the Hudson Bay ice nearly gone.
I don’t have a number right now, but I’m still expecting 2011 to finish near 2010.
-Scott
You haven’t learned from last year, I see. Disappointing.
Who crawled out of the woodwork?
Don’t worry, I’ll crawl back in.
But some disinformation is just a bit too much, you know. You should really stop doing this. It’s dishonest.
Be specific.
You are suggesting there will be a recovery, just like you did last year. You could have just as easily written a post saying 2011 is still tracking 2007, or even better: a post showing everything. But you chose 2006. This might easily mislead people who do not know much about Arctic sea ice. I believe this is your purpose.
I am making an observation, which is how science was done before it was corrupted by climate science big money.
Show it all, Steven. Don’t go blotting out the other trend lines.
The whole point was to show the similarity with 2006 by removing the noise. That is called science.
Something tells me Neven would not be complaining had the post said something like “Arctic sea ice lower than 2007, record low extent likely in 2011”.
Which is really funny because at this point in the game, you can’t tell much. For instance, the July 6, 2007 extent was essentially equal in value to the July 7, 2006 extent (and would be right around July 4-5, 2011). Yet their September minima were drastically different. Even as late as July 9, 2006 and 2007 were only separated by about 100k km^2. To put that into context, that’s about 1 day’s loss this time of year and 2008 and 2009 were 400-500k km^2 higher than 2006 at that same date. I’d have to run the numbers to say for sure, but I think CT’s area value is more representative of the Sept extent minimum right now than the extent itself (for instance CT area would correctly predict 2007 as the lowest result and also shows 2006>2008 for today’s date…though in reality I should be looking at a weekly average or something to help reduce noise). But again, the spreads are so small that it might not be that good of a predictor either.
Personally, I think the 2006 extent ended higher than it “should” have, while 2007 was much lower than it “should” have (“should” meaning once the noise is out…yeah I know, sketch argument). However, the area metric would seem to support the above (placing them in the order 2005>2006>2009>2010>2008>2007 for the minimum vs. 2006>2005>2009>2010>2008>2007 for the JAXA extent.
-Scott
It all depends on the wind. 2007 started with lots of ice, but relentless south winds pushed it north and and melted it.
Neven, what are you referring to? That kind of vague character assassination is both meaningless and unpleasant.
w.
These tiny differences are interesting, but not very profound.
What I find interesting is the alarmists like to point out years like 2007, but they seem quiet like when relative to 2007 there was a lot more ice in 2009. Personally I think the discussion about the extent of sea ice is a lot less important than people claim because we are talking about a measly 30 year period of satellite observations. Over the last 10,000 years what do you bet the north pole was worse than 2007 many times? Of course Hansen wasn’t around back then.
Walt Meier says that the Arctic was ice free during the last 5,000 years.
It would be very interesting if it continued to stay close to 2006 all the way through. If so it would be strong evidence that El Nino and La Nina have a clear effect on Arctic ice. La Nina has been going on all this year. The El Nino warmth that was hanging about the Northern Hemisphere that caused the droop in the ice total last year is gone now.
How important is late summer melt anyway? I went to cryosphere today and cycled through early June images and honestly I can’t see much of a change over the past 2 decades other than what appear to me as random fluctuations. Has it occurred to anyone hysterical about this that the sea ice extent isn’t going to be the same all the time?
Also don’t forget some guy at NASA did a study showing the impact of unusual winds on reducing sea ice concentration, so its not just temperature. The El Nino/La Nina connection is an interesting (and likely) connection. I would imagine the PDO is as well and the fact that the last negative cycle of the PDO ended in about 1977 is pretty interesting since polar ice was probably a bit exaggerated at the time. Just when NASA starts tracking it and surprise, there is more melting now than there was then. If the PDO is really going back to a negative phase it will be interesting to see what happens to the polar ice and how the alarmists go into more and more contortions to keep the public buying their theories.