Arctic sea ice is on almost the identical trajectory as 2006, the year with the highest minimum of the past decade.
Scientists have been predicting an ice-free Arctic for almost 100 years.
Seth Borenstein in Washington
Associated PressDecember 12, 2007
Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?
New Evidence Supports Geology’s View That the Arctic Is Growing Warmer – NYTimes.com
Climate scientists have absolutely no clue what they are talking about, which is why Barack Obama considers them to be indisputable gods of truth.
It is interesting that the graph shows a slight uptick at the very end. I’m not sure whether it will be “smoothed” out or not, but I’ve noticed them before, when a storm parks itself over the Pole.
https://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/aecric-sea-ice-polar-gale-brewing/
The strongest winds I’ve seen recorded with the current storm were up around 35 mph at the North Pole Camera, though one can surmise stronger winds blew in other places, looking at isobars. One then would expect a down-tick in the graph, due to ice being crushed and mixed with the warmer water beneath, as occurred in the late summer of 2012, and therefore seeing an uptick instead of a down-tick makes you wonder.
My guess is that some melt-water pools and patches of slush are mistaken as open water, and then when sub-freezing gales blow an inch or two of snow about (arctic gales tend to be dry) the pools get skimmed over, and are no longer seen as open water, and therefore there is an uptick in the graph.
In actual fact, for a storm to have an effect like the late summer 2012 gale had, things have to be lined up perfectly. The ice must be at its late-summer weakest, and the water beneath the ice must be stratified, and have a layer of milder water slid between colder layers like a card into a deck.
Ever since 2012 I’ve watched storms carefully (as have ever-hopeful Alarmists), to see if there is a repeat of that year’s effect. (It was basically a vanishing act, for a vast area of ice.) It hasn’t happened again.
This early in the summer summer-storms seem to actually slow the summer melt. The gloomy skies shade the ice and shield it from the bright 24-hour-a-day sunlight. Then, when the sun does pop out, freshly fallen snow has the highest albedo, and a lot of sunlight gets reflected before things can get back to the status quo of melt-water pools and slush of battleship gray.
Once into mid-July the storms can hold rain, and those are the days of highest hope for Alarmists, which always causes me great wonder. If you think you are seeing signs of the end-of-the-world, why are you cheering and throwing about confetti?
excellent summary there caleb . you highlight something i have never been able to figure out, why would people who have the interests of the arctic at heart want to see all the ice melt ? it is the last thing i would like to see. i would prefer increasing ice extent and thickness to ensure the oil ,gas and whatever else the global corporations would like to get their hands on stay where it is.
it has actually surprised me there has not been some attempt to combat the ice on a greater scale to get at the arctic riches .as long as the ice remains, so does the integrity of the arctic.
There is an interesting argument to be made regarding protecting the arctic simply because it is beautiful, like the Grand Canyon.
An interesting counter-argument would involve whether or not we would protect the Grand Canyon to the degree we do, if there were treasures (besides its sheer beauty) within.
Suppose the care for cancer turned out to be a mineral called “curezite”, but the only place on earth that “curezite” could be found was the Grand Canyon. And suppose you yourself were dying of cancer. Would you be tempted to mine the Grand Canyon?
Hmm. Interesting debates could be had.
If people could only learn to be reasonable, and avoid extremist stances, there usually are ways of accepting the treasures nature offers without doing great damage.
Perhaps this is because if the Arctic continues not to melt, some people might suspect that Beckwith, Serreze, et al., don’t know what they’re talking about.