Over the last two weeks, Arctic sea ice extent has taken a sharp turn towards the median, and is now nearly the highest in a decade for the date.
COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut
This shows us the difference between politics and science. I wrote this two weeks ago, mocking Obama’s 2008 nomination acceptance speech.
July 7, 2014 by steven goddard
I am absolutely certain that three weeks from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that … this was the moment when the summer 2014 melt of the Arctic began to slow (for a week or two.)
I’m Absolutely Certain That Three Weeks From Now .. | Real Science
Obama’s prophesy was based on psychotic delusion and a belief that his followers are idiots. My prophesy was based on a simple analysis of the ice conditions and the long term weather forecast.
I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children …. this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal
– Barack Obama June 3rd, 2008
Sensor failure within a week.
You may be right… Either sensor failure, or more likely, they will find a new algorithm for calculating ice area. (Needless to say, the new algorithm will consistently show lower numbers than the old method.)
Of course they could just fly their time machine back into the past and alter the old charts and readings.
Go, Mother Nature!! What is that weird downward spike back in May?
An error in the data which they haven’t bothered to fix yet.
keep your eye on creative “data errors” slanting towards warmer if the positive trend continues.
We have to listen to his whine on the radio every day. Do we really need to read his whine everywhere else?
I read about a recent paper that claims the Antarctic Sea Ice extent was due to over estimation from poor calculations of satellite data . My guess is we will here about the same overestimation for the Arctic as well.
The problem is that very few want to discuss the ‘flip side’ of the findings of the paper…that the older data is UNDER counted (smaller than it should be). They are so quick to jump on the side of the error over esitmating the ice.
There is also the chance that neither version of the data used is wrong…and that the supposed difference is within the margin of error for the equipment used. Basically there is a discrepency of about the size of the state of Nebraska between the two data sets, maybe around 10-15% of the total area. This doesn’t eliminate the trend of increasing ice amount, just makes it smaller (if it is an overcount).
In one of the threads on WUWT someone posted a link to the MODIS images for the 21st of July, for this year for an area around the South Sandwich Islands. The shot was releatively cloud free. I decided to play around and pulled up the same location for the same day, but for 2013. It was also relatively cloud free. Flipping back and forth between the two images showed a significant increase in this year’s ice…on the order of 10s of thousands of sq km MORE this year than last.
No, this isn’t ‘scientific’ or very ‘precise’, but it does show an easy way to figure out which version of the data is ‘right’…just compare it to a cloud free (doesn’t have to be daily) visible light image series as a sanity check. Yeah, it may involve a little manual labor and some actual thinking instead of relying on models and algorithms…
Surely any researcher worth his salt would have done what you did on a larger scale with historical images.
I guess these guys aren’t worth their salt.
Then so was all the past, as the method has not changed, so the anomaly is correct.
I see others have commented – but another note – even if the glitches turned out to be 100% true – it only accounts for 100000 -200000square miles of the 1.2 million square miles that the antarctic is above average. Take it out and we still have a million mile surplus
You know what? You can rationalize all sorts of adjustments to make past ice more and present ice less. You can make all sorts of claims on these adjusted results. You can do all of this without estimating the errors or any statement of statistical significance.
But in the end the damned ice is still there.
The 97%ers are getting prepared for the “Na, na, na-na, na”s from the sceptics when Arctic ice coverage hits normal levels. As with anything else in politics, its sounds like they are preparing to blame:
1. The messenger
2. The victim
3. Method of data collection
They are still in denial that their models could be in error.
Remember all the silly news stories this time last year?
“North Pole now a lake”
http://m.livescience.com/38347-north-pole-ice-melt-lake.html
It is the “warmists”, not the poles, that are on “thin ice.”
The stepback from Arctic ice area has occurred already: apparently ice area is not as important as multi-year ice coverage. Which is not an unreasonable point for longer term consideration, but is of course a significant movement of goalposts.
After CO2 is gone from the rant, we’ll still be in a fight: the anti-capitalist, anti-global, anti-industrial philosophy will still assert a BETTER world will br achieved only when a Man’s sweat replaces fossil fuels and machines. Except for the ruling elite, of course, who need to be comfortable, fast on the scene and in touch with everyone, everything, everywhere, all the time, to make the right decisions for us workers.
Congratulations Steve for you correct (so far) prediction, but you have to admit that we (the skepticals) have had a “liitle hand” from solar radiations in the last week or so.
The funny part is that (it looks like) the alarmists have *no idea* why the Arctic ice is *not* melting like 2007 or 2012, if it was so close to minimum (even reaching the minimum levels of those years) at some points of May and June.
In their minds, 2013 means nothing and the ice should follow 2007 or 2012 because that’s what their “bible”- I mean “models”- says.
It feels good to see how their multimillion scheme of pseudo-science cannot describe the evolution of the Arctic ice, not even for a few weeks in the future, while your simple logic and attention to the observed present data and trends let you make your prediction with high accuracy.
Good job! 🙂
Something that a lot of folks seem to forget, is that to become ‘multi-year’ ice, it has to survive that first summer. So, it flows, logically, that each year needs to build on the previous year’s base. Which, usually, means that it is THICKER to begin with.