Arctic Sea Ice Extent Unchanged For Several Days

Arctic sea ice extent hasn’t changed for several days, and remains just below the 2006 minimum.

ScreenHunter_2419 Aug. 31 06.47 COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Arctic Sea Ice Extent Unchanged For Several Days

  1. Eliza says:

    OT but a new atmospheric physicist Berry (PhD) debunks AGW

    If NH ice does not fall again before “expected minimum” its the end of AGW LOL

  2. The Iconoclast says:

    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”

  3. wwlee4411 says:

    Reblogged this on wwlee4411 and commented:
    What does his tell you about Global Warming/Climate Change?

  4. rah says:

    Oh, the alarmists haven’t given up yet.

    “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.”

    • nielszoo says:

      …the ice area will be less than one million square kilometres – the official designation of ice-free…

      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.

      • rah says:

        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”.

      • rw says:

        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.)

        • nielszoo says:

          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.

        • rah says:

          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.

  5. Alec, aka Daffy Duck says:

    Sea surface temp look ready for an early refreeze
    first here’s august 24:

    Compare that with today, Aug 31st

    • stewart pid says:

      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.

  6. Scott says:

    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:

  7. kirkmyers says:

    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.

  8. Take a look at how Arctic temperature trends correlate with 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.

  9. 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”

    • kirkmyers says:

      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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *