ims2007265_alaska.gif (512×512)
Turquoise represents current ice that wasn’t present at the 2007 minimum. Red is the opposite.
In order to get to 2007 minimum levels, 27% of the current ice covered area would have to disappear.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Mission Accomplished
- Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- “pushing nature past its limits”
- Compassion For Terrorists
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on Mission Accomplished
- Bob G on Mission Accomplished
- James Snook on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- czechlist on Mission Accomplished
- arn on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- Disillusioned on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- Gamecock on “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- czechlist on “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
The data from NSIDC and JAXA have a much smaller difference. For 8/19 NSIDC was at 4.44738 million square kilometers vs. the 2007 record of 4.16070 million square kilometers or 6.9% above that record. On JAXA, the figure was 4,681,406 square kilometers vs. 4,254,531 square kilometers, a difference of 10.0%.
A very exact science, no doubt.
Don,
That is to be expected given the differences in the minimum concentration of ice used for each analysis. The fact that NIC showed a loss of more than 525,000 km2 in the past week indicates that losing that much ice in the remaining melt season is not beyond the realm of possibility, particularly if the right wind pattern comes up between now and then.
You expected there to be 37% more ice than 2007? Nice.
Travis,
I agree with you about the differences. Each index is calculated somewhat differently. In any case, a record low minimum extent is likely on both the NSIDC and JAXA measures. If the ice extent declines at just the average rate for the 2000s, records would be set. If the ice declines at the average rate for the 2007-11 period from August 19 to the minimum, both indices would fall below 4 million square kilometers for the first time.
Steve, “You expected there to be 37% more ice than 2007? Nice.”
Why not? We’re looking at an analysis that deals with ultra-low concentration ice, so we expect it to show a larger difference from the 2007 minimum than analyses that don’t. If it continues to melt at the same rate as the past week, we expect to see the 2007 minimum extent record matched or exceeded in three weeks, which puts us roughly at the traditional end of the melt season. Right on time!
Granted, much of what melted this past week was probably that very ultra-low concentration ice, but a wind event could easily compact the ice and account for most, if not all of the required decrease in ice extent. It may happen, it may not, Time will tell. I AM fairly certain that if NIC does not show a minimum extent by the end of the melt season, it will be one of few, if not the only group, that does not.
That low concentration Arctic ice always wrecks my day.
Bah.. Who is going to believe NOAA’s maps?
I agree Dave N , The warmists have proven they will manipulate data in order to be able to claim their predictions have come to pass. I trust Stevens’ educated eye far more than I will ever trust the warmists again. The warmists with their false claims and their cherry picking of data while paying no attention to the overall picture have destroyed their own credibility and stood science on it’s head by bringing the scientific proccess into disrepute. Sites such as Real Science and WUWT as well as some other sceptic blogs are the only place you can find truth as sceptics are willing to admit if they are wrong and warmists will just continue to lie.
Those NOAA maps you keep showing are not accurate in my opinion. There seems to have been a massive ice loss from the one you showed just a few days ago.
Andy
Andy: it’s the low concentration Arctic ice wrecking Steven’s day again.
Hi Andy W,
I won’t insist on this, as I really don’t know, but I think that the dates on the maps are wrong. They show the extent of the ice about 2 weeks ago. So the massive ice loss you refer to would be the effect of the storm hitting.
I personally prefer the maps here:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Using their comparison tool, you can see that the outline that Steve presents here corresponds to the period of around August 5
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=08&fd=05&fy=2012&sm=08&sd=06&sy=2012
Brilliant. Look at junk maps instead off the satellite images.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/21/a-close-up-of-the-ice-free-arctic/
Sorry, Steve, is the image at the top of this post a satellite shot?
Stop being an idiot. My patience is running thin for trolls.
Just think of all the opportunities, we could go surfing, whale watching, you name it, all from the tip of northern Greenland. On top of that we can start farming in Greenland again like the Vikings did, after all we do need to feed 7 billion people and with all the land converted for biofuel production we DO need to grow cereal for human consumption somewhere.
It is all looking up I say.
Ah, my old friend Steve Goddard still trying to spin things in any way other than the truth to justify your completely incorrect assessment of the what is going on in the Arctic. It’s melting Steve, and every record from 2007 will be shattered this year, and by 2030 at the latest (and most likely much sooner) we’ll see our first ice-free Arctic ocean in many thousands of years. With all the spinning you do, you should consider becoming a Whitling Dervish:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_Cf-ZxDfZA&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Yes, that winter storm which came six weeks early and broke up the ice, is a sure sign that the Arctic is heating out of control.
Precisely what I expected would be said by certain individuals. Arctic cyclones come and go all the time and have for centuries. But what makes current cyclones so harmful to the ice is the fact that it s so thin. Years of gradually thinning ice have left it vulnerable to getting chewed up by storms. You really should stop by Neven’s Arctic sea ice blog. With an open mind, you might actually learn something.
Grow up R. I am so tired of hysterical adults.
Hmmm…. Funny
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
Which Stephen was more than happy to rest his case on in April, currently shows quite a different story, with current ice are about 12% lower than 2007
OF COURSE they all show different values. They use different methodologies, different definitions of what constitutes sea ice. Mercifully, the Bible is quiet on this topic.
Take measuring the coastline length of a fiord: if you get down to a small enough macro resolution, you could argue for any value up to infinity. It doesn’t mean any method is wrong or right.
The only sensible thing to do is to pick a couple of reputable yardsticks and stick with them, not cruise around like a de-principled data scavenger, searching opportunistically for the one which happens to prop up your side of the argument at any moment in time.