It has been 25 years since Hansen predicted the demise of polar sea ice. Gaia has celebrated the date by producing the most polar sea ice in the last 25 years.
arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.global.anom.1979-2008
Look for the world’s top climate experts to blame the cold weather in the US and Europe on missing sea ice.
F you like your climate you can keep it.
If Reggie hadn’t suffered erectile dysfunction with his blow torch this past summer Steven would be singing a different tune … sarc
It’s dysfunctional, decaying, non-standard, socially unacceptable ice.
Non peer reviewed…
I was so worried about that kind of ice, I can finally breath a sigh of relief…
Of course they wont graph it Now we know why. Why dont you request chapman CT to put up a graph?
Andy Lee Robinson has updated his indispensable animation of sea ice volume – which makes the point yet again how dramatically northern sea ice is declining:
http://climatecrocks.com/2013/11/25/sea-ice-volume-is-not-recovering/
Oh look! Another proxy-observation grafted hockey stick. How quaint.
… and besides, volume doesn’t change albedo.
This is due to all the heat & carbon dioxide hiding under the Arctic/Antarctic ice & pushing all this ice up to the surface!
Trust me! I am a “respected” “Global Warming” Scientist winner of countless Nobel Prizes.
Would I lie to you?
Another thing that calls my attention is the record of all time in 1988(!!).
Why 1988? Random anomaly?
Alarmists indignantly say climate change was never about the money being spent on wild goose chases. yeah. right.
“$1.5 million Australian expedition to Antarctica”
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3898858.htm
It is coincidental that the program air date was during the one week period their ship, Aurora Australis, was stuck in sea ice. A Lloyds Register Ice class 1A Super Icebreaker, no less. Not pertinent to the story, I guess.
This is sub-standard ice. Obama will provide the world with better ice.
tea party ice, its evil !!!!
Clearly this sea ice is in denial.
Scientists knew this was a hoax as far back as 2008. Take a look at this article on the US Senate website!
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
Also look at the following if you want to know what is really happening:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html
Are you F kidding me. Don’t look at the 4 extreme points. Look at the trend. It couldn’t be more clear than that. You actually disproving your point…..
Sixth highest extent disproves sixth highest extent. You must be a genius.
Eric, Erc, Eric, the last six years of the trend hardly look like a death spiral do they? In fact, it, like the average global T, is looking more and more like a sine wave of a repeating pattern, and numerous peer review studies indicate that much of the loss in sea ice was due to large scale changes in ocean currents. In the 1970s sea ice was known to be expanding, reaching a high at the beginning or the satellite trend, now we are apparently well on our way back to that point.
David, David, Davie, Eric is correct. One year is not a trend. Of course if anti-warming people like you actually understood science there wouldn’t be inane websites like this one.
Jim, If warming people like you actually understood science there wouldn’t be any inane warming scare and of course websites like this would not be needed.
In anomalies, it’s different. Highest in 14 years. 16th highest and 19th coolest since 1979.
http://plazamoyua.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/hielo-marino-global-nov-2013.png
Mathematical gibberish.
Dou you know the difference between the column you used and the next to the right? The mean of both give exactly the same result as the “mathematical gibberish”.
http://plazamoyua.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/hielo-marino-global-nov-2013-abs.png
Your image does no resemble their’s at all. Both of mine do. 14 years back to find as much ice.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Anomaly is area minus a constant. If their anomaly trend is different than their area trend, then they did something wrong.
You think they did something wrong here …
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
… and went unnoticed, untill you found out?
Please, your first link (sans a date) shows an anomaly of about plus 50,000 sq. K, yet for the last year the anomaly has consistently approached plus 500,000 sq. K, http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/global-sea-ice-anomaly-a-different-view/
As you can clearly see, there have only been two years in the last 16, where the global mean anomaly had has many positive days, and 2013 is not over.
Beyond that Mr phazeme, your charts do not match each other. One appears very close to Steve’s at about 21 million sq K , the other shows only 19 million sq K??? (You may be mixing area and extent, but it would be best if you admit that Steve is correct here.)
UIUC Humanities/English professor Gillen Wood has a guest commentary in the Seattle Times 12/1/13. He should wander over to the UIUC Atmospheric Sciences Building when he gets a chance. http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2022364216_gillenwoodopedtyphoonhaiyanclimatechange01xml.html
hardly a compelling article. Pure speculation about future events unsupported by the recent decrease in hurricanes and other dangerous weather.
Many others as well must have found the jumbled topics confusing. (Building codes, storm chasers, Tambora.) When I showed the print edition to my wife, she was lost after the first few paragraphs; would not even finish reading it. Articles like this generally bring out the newspaper commenters with sharp knives. This one generated three comments.
The “smoking gun” that the solar output is causing climate change on earth can be found in the following article:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Why does the martian ice caps expand and contract at the same pace as ours? The answer is simple – the sun is causing the change NOT CO2.
Wow Dr Ed (let me guess, a Doctor of Homeopathy, not astronomy), thank you for directing our attention to such an authoritative article on a ground breaking theory that … wait a second … we haven’t heard about again for 6 years??? I wonder why not???
Jim, normally I would not respond but since you asked I will respond. I have both a PhD in physics as well as a MD in medicine. 19 years of college in total. Astronomy and ham radio are two of my hobbies so solar output is very important to me.
If you were a podiatrist you could remove his foot from his mouth.
Why not? It doesn’t fit the narrative, so those who support the narrative, which includes the MSM, won’t talk about it.
All the doom and gloom predictions about warming make me wonder a few things:
If it’s warmer now than ever, why did olives and figs grow in Germany 1,000 years ago far further north than they can today? Note that this is based on agricultural records kept by churches and governments at the time, but I’m sure they lied about it because they wanted to support the “deniers” of today.
If it’s warmer now than ever, why is it that “warming island”, an island off the coast of Greenland that “until recently” was covered by ice and has been hailed as “proof” the planet is warmer than ever, appear on navigational charts printed prior to the 1950s?
Why weren’t low lying sea side cities and towns (say, Venice) which existed then pretty much as they exist today, underwater? It should happen now… why?
I’ve actually seen the FORTRAN code used by Michael Mann (of “Global Warming is Mann -made” fame) to “model” the earth’s temperature and produced the now famous “hockey stick” graph (should actually be called the “hokey stick” graph), and seen the comment in it about adding a fudge factor after a certain point in the data to ensure a positive warming trend in the output. If the data actually supported it, why would this be needed?
The amount of energy reaching the Earth from the sun varies due to solar output variance and changes in the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit. Ignoring this is like trying to predict the temperature trend of a pot of water on your stove, without accounting for the amount of heat output by the stove. If the amount of energy entering the pot isn’t a constant, then trying to predict the future temperature of the water assuming a constant heat input won’t track with reality. And the amount of energy reaching Earth from the sun is NOT a constant. So, who isn’t talking about the variability in solar output, along with the variability in the Earth’s orbit, both of which have impacts on the amount of energy reaching our planet and form the primary input to planetary climate, and why aren’t they talking about it and only talking about CO2?
Why does the historical record indicate that CO2 increases in the atmosphere FOLLOW increases in temperature, rather than precedes it?
If the atmosphere were transparent to thermal energy (no “greenhouse effect”), the average annualized global temperature would be 0 degrees fahrenheit. It is actually 69. Over 60 of those degrees are due to water vapor, something which humans have essentially zero control over or impact to (it’s due to evaporation off oceans, lakes, and rivers). When you look at all man made emissions, .28 degrees are attributable to human activity. So if we increased our impact by 500%, the average annualized global temperature would rise to 70. That would be a catastrophe because… why? (I would have sworn I bookmarked the article which explained this, but I can’t find it to provide the link, but I think it was published by junkscience.com, which is produced by Steve Milloy, author of books like Junk Science Judo, and Green Hell).
Do we know what the “ideal” average annualized global temperature is? Until we know that, we don’t know if we’d be better off with things warmer or cooler. But I do know that warmer means a longer growing season, more food, less starvation, less illness, and less energy usage (heating my home from an ambient temperature (degrees F used throughout) of < 20 to 65 has got to be more energy intensive than cooling it from 95 to 75, especially when you consider that the heating process usually involves producing new heat (burring natural gas, for example), whereas the cooling process just moves heat out of my house (A/C systems are just heat pumps; they don't "produce" cold). So we should try to stop the Earth from getting warmer because… why?
Basically, come back when you can refute these articles: http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html
http://globalwarmingisunfactual.wordpress.com
Until then, please devote your efforts to reducing your own ignorance.
The best way to protect the planet is to stop having babies!
Politicians want to claim things are warming. This is an excuse to simply increase TAXES to buy more votes! If we are entering another Maunder Minimum while converting our farmlands into EtOH production for autos then we are in for a very rough future!!!