Arctic sea ice extent hasn’t changed for several days, and remains just below the 2006 minimum.
COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- Walter on Ellen Flees To The UK
- conrad ziefle on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- conrad ziefle on Scientist Kamala Harris
- conrad ziefle on Ellen Flees To The UK
- William on Ellen Flees To The UK
- William on Ellen Flees To The UK
- arn on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Greg in NZ on Ellen Flees To The UK
- arn on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Disillusioned on Ellen Flees To The UK
OT but a new atmospheric physicist Berry (PhD) debunks AGW
http://www.dailyinterlake.com/opinion/global-warming-just-eco-religion/article_171dd02a-30a6-11e4-89e1-001a4bcf887a.html
If NH ice does not fall again before “expected minimum” its the end of AGW LOL
Uh oh, time for the alarmists to find something else to whinge about.
BTW this is a great, short read from Matt Ridley… “Reasons to be Cheerful” http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/reasons-to-be-cheerful-(1).aspx
Reblogged this on wwlee4411 and commented:
What does his tell you about Global Warming/Climate Change?
Oh, the alarmists haven’t given up yet. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html
“Misleading as such forecasts are, some people continue to make them. Only last month, while giving evidence to a House of Lords Select Committee inquiry on the Arctic, Cambridge University’s Professor Peter Wadhams claimed that although the Arctic is not ice-free this year, it will be by September 2015.
Asked about this yesterday, he said: ‘I still think that it is very likely that by mid-September 2015, the ice area will be less than one million square kilometres – the official designation of ice-free, implying only a fringe of floes around the coastlines. That is where the trend is taking us.’
For that prediction to come true it would require by far the fastest loss of ice in history. It would also fly in the face of a report last year by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which stated with ‘medium confidence’ that ice levels would ‘likely’ fall below one million square kilometres by 2050.”
These people are shameless. “Ice free” is an area about 3 times larger than New England and almost as large as California and Texas combined? No wonder they keep saying the ice is “thinner” apparently the first 1.0×10? km² don’t really count towards the totals.
Yep the rantings of some of them give one the impression that if someone can row a kayak through the NW or N passage then the Arctic is “ice free”.
I’m perfectly comfortable with this definition. I’m happy to give them a million k^2. Consider it as so much rope …
Why be picky? And anyway, it ever got to be near that figure, it would be something to consider seriously, whatever the explanation.
(Don’t get into the habit of pouncing on every convention as if it were more evidence of chicanery. That just makes your stance look questionable.)
I have a problem with propaganda, and their definition of “ice free” falls firmly into that camp. How many low info voters or reporters are even going to question “ice free” as being anything other than open water? Their definition of “ice free” means that almost 19% of the Arctic Ocean has ice on it. If we were talking about the area of the average house in a suburban US neighborhood as the “ice” their definition of “house free” would be edge to edge 1/3 acre lots with a house on each one, or a house every 76 feet for farther than the eye could see. Continuing this analogy (into the ground) that would be about 3.5 times the number of single family detached houses in the US floating in the Arctic Ocean. Their definition of the phrase “ice free” is an out and out lie.
I certainly agree that if ice cover got down to a million square klicks there would be something to investigate so if they wish to use a million square kilometers as a baseline I have no problem with that but I have a huge problem with their wholly misleading nomenclature.
My own and about every other poster at this blog and our host’s “stance” is already been described as being so over the top that “questionable” does not even come close. We are after all according to our own president, his press, the largest political party in this nation, and a considerable portion of the so called scientific community and several other governments “deniers” and “Flat Earthers”.
So personally I really don’t pay much attention to those that would label my own stance as “questionable” because it is like hitting scar tissue with a feather. Besides as far as I’m concerned those that have labeled people like us are the ones to worry about. It is they that propose to change the whole economic balance of the world and expand the power of government to a level we free people will never consent to based on a hypothesis that is being falsified as we speak. So you wanna question someone about their opinions, I would suggest it is they you should concentrate your attention on.
Sea surface temp look ready for an early refreeze
first here’s august 24:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/satellite/plots/satsst.arc.d-07.png
Compare that with today, Aug 31st
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/satellite/plots/satsst.arc.d-00.png
I looked at the same map on Friday and thought exactly the same thing. The ice is winning this round of the fight but many more to go before the alarmists are bloodied and beaten.
I’m thinking the minimum will be ~Sept 11. I often use the Navy model’s concentration output for predicting this, as the sweeping of the deep red (near 100% concentration) across the ice sheet coincides with the refreeze. The current forecast only goes through 09/07, and the “red sweep” is predicted to start by then, but not approach the ice edge. Quick eyeball tells me a few days after that. Here’s the source:
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticicen_nowcast_anim30d.gif
NSIDC makes it appear that the arctic sea ice extent is way below normal. (Normal, of course, being a comparison to the record high in 1979. NSIDC simply ignores earlier years with low sea ice extent.)
Arctic sea ice extent has been on the rise, but NSIDC insists on making the following observation:
“Arctic sea ice extent is well below average, and large areas of low concentration ice are observed in the Beaufort Sea and along the Siberian coast. However, it is highly unlikely to set a record low at the end of this year’s melt season.” Duh, you think so?
NSDIC’s desperate attempt to create a melt problem where they isn’t one is an example what happens when your job security depends on giving the right answers to your political bosses.
LOL They really are masters of spin. (Which I suspect tells us something about the hiring practices at NSIDC.)
Take a look at how Arctic temperature trends correlate with the AMO
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/08/31/arctic-ice-and-the-amo/
Warm 1940’s – Warm AMO
Cold 1970’s – Cold AMO
Warm 2000’s – Warm AMO
When AMO starts to drop again, watch for temperatures to start falling again, and ice to increase.
Temperatures will steadily fall for 30 yrs, just as they did from 1940’s to the nadir of the 1970’s.
That is what we should be preparing for.
Paul, I think this is your chart also? https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/mean12.png
I did not know the correlation to HN T was so strong; far better then CO2 to T.
NH T (Northern Hemisphere temperature.)
If you can’t explain the pause, you don’t know the cause. Your science has flaws because physics has laws. You can’t just say “because”
The use of the word “pause” is itself unscientific. Where is the scientific support for the conclusion that we are in a short pause that will soon end, followed by a resumption of warming? I’d like to see the data (not models, but hard evidence). The fact is, the current pause could last 30, 50 or a 100 years — or longer. That’s not a pause in the current warming; it’s the end of the warming.
Skeptics had to nail warmists to the wall to get that much of a concession and there are still a heck of a lot of the Al Gore Climate Reality Leadership Course grads who “Deny the Pause”
It really makes you want to see a mile high glacier planted on Chicago.
http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/plugins/random-image-widget/cartoons/cartoon-7.jpg