No Change In Arctic Ice Extent For Ten Days – Just Below The 2006 Minimum

ScreenHunter_2505 Sep. 03 07.43 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 No Change In Arctic Ice Extent For Ten Days – Just Below The 2006 Minimum

  1. geran says:

    Just a “flat spot” on the graph, or the “bottom”?

  2. BobW in NC says:

    Our local newspaper (Raleigh News and Observer) this morning had an AP article by the Climate Change guy, Seth Borenstein, “Study links polar vortex to melting sea ice” (page 4A). The study focused on the “…unusually low sea-ice levels in the Barents and Kara Seas, off Russia” as providing warm ocean waters that allow escape of Arctic air.

    http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/09/02/4116300_study-links-polar-vortex-chills.html?rh=1

    So there you have it!

    I wonder if he and the others ever looked at DMI, JAXA and other data, which I assume do cover the two seas in question.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Bob,
      I won’t pay N&O a dime for their news propaganda and I will not advertise my business in that rag.

    • Gail Combs says:

      What is so hilarious about blaming the winter polar vortex on ” melting sea ice” and “…unusually low sea-ice levels in the Barents and Kara Seas, off Russia” is the fact the whole darn region is FROZEN come WINTER.

      SHEEESH they really do think we have pudding for brains.

      The next interglacial can not come fast enough. The human race really does need a cleansing out of the Zombies of the Gene Pool

    • Andy DC says:

      I wonder what made the polar vortex come down big time during 1899 and caused it to be -15 in DC, -10 in Atlanta and -2 in Tallahassee, FL? Also the only blizzard in the history of Florida.

      These people are so full of it that they think they can say anything and get away with it. Are people really that stupid to buy into this nonsense?

    • Scott says:

      I’d been checking over there the past few days to see the update…you got there before me. PIOMAS extrapolations less than two years ago had people projecting the PIOMAS model volume minimum this year would be <1000 km^3 and 0 volume for 2015. It sure looks like the minimum will be ~7000 m^3, which puts it between 2007 and 2008 values. 2009 might be the most comparable year in terms of area/extent/modeled volume. Also, take a look at their modeled thicknesses:

      http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/Bpiomas_plot_daily_heff.2sst.png

      I'll need to look through the projected values people were having for this year, but I think we might see PIOMAS volume minimum at 4 sigmas above the value people were expecting two years ago.

      Skeptics have had some embarrassing times since 2010 with respect to sea ice, now I guess it's time for the CAGWers to be embarrassed, though many don't seem to be.

      -Scott

      • geran says:

        Scott, I agree with your entire comment except this “Skeptics have had some embarrassing times since 2010 with respect to sea ice…”

        Real Skeptics are not embarrassed by NATURAL VARIABILITY.

        • Scott says:

          Geran,

          It wasn’t necessarily the result, but what some skeptics predicted before (and during) the result. I’m one that said we might see the Arctic sea ice hit 0 during a summer minimum this century, and I could end up being completely wrong about that. Oh well, I’m not a doomsayer or a natural cycle presser either one, nor do I think an ice-free Arctic for a couple months per year is that bad.

          -Scott

        • geran says:

          Thanks for clearing it up. I thought you were implying an “ice-free” Arctic might somehow be proof of AGW.

        • Scott says:

          I would certainly say that it isn’t. Personally, I think warming from CO2 has contributed to some ice loss, but probably isn’t the main driver. Other man-made factors (albedo-changing aerosols!) could be just as big a driver, if not bigger. And natural variability may or may not swamp all of them. But the overconfidence exhibited by both sides at time is a bit ridiculous.

          At some point, I’ll need to grab the newest data and model outputs and run the numbers to show the forecasts made by people like Tamino and Neven’s followers in 2011/2012/early 2013 are excluded from the observations at the 99.9% confidence interval. On the other hand, it’s plainly obvious just looking at the plots that they were way off, so probably not worth my time.

          -Scott

  3. Mike says:

    About 8 more “melt” days left. Let’s see them spin this.

  4. De Paus says:

    The CAGW scam has started a new denial campaign.It is a load of BS, but people read the headlines and many will believe it. A lie, repeated often enough, will eventually be believed.
    “The Arctic Sea Ice Problem Is Actually Worse — Not Better — Than We Thought”
    http://www.businessinsider.com.au/arctic-sea-ice-grows-but-still-shrinking-2014-9
    People like you are telling the truth, thank you for that, Tony. But when the MSM are emptying buckets full of global warming scam BS over the heads of the public, alas just a few people will know what is true and what is not true.

Leave a Reply

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