Arctic sea ice continues its record growth this autumn, having gained four million km² since September 1 after the shortest melt season on record.
Land ice has also grown at a record rate since September 1, with Greenland gaining about three billion tons of ice a day since September 1.
Meanwhile, climate scientists demand racketeering money, as they continue to lie about the condition of the Arctic and man’s ability to influence it.
Arctic ice melting faster and earlier as scientists demand action | Environment | The Guardian
It’s ironic that probably the only people HOPING for lower ice this year will be Paris climate conference delegates.
Yes, they want it really bad because they say it’s really bad.
There are also people who worry about growing ice and wish the alarmist liars were right. The world population wouldn’t do well during reglaciation.
You got that right, CW.
Count me in that group.
Compared to failed crops, I see shrinking polar wastelands as a good thing.
Melting ice is no catastrophe.
The thing is, for realists, the truth must be known, in order to plan and adopt strategies for successful adaptation to whatever the future holds.
Perpetuating lies is a problem for people who wish to actually plan for the future.
The AMO has turned.
As it is a major driver of Arctic sea ice, we will see a gradual increase of Arctic sea ice levels over the next 20 or so years.
That is why they are so, so, so DESPERATE to get some totalitarian control mechanism in place at the Paris climate soirée.
Bit Chilly over at Jo Nova said
Anyone have any hard data to back that up?
Surprised you haven’t seen it, Gail. The North Atlantic blob has raised a lot of discussion. How could you miss it all? You won’t like the current explanation.
So Martin, you admit that you “like” your alarmist predictions!
Accidental I am sure, but your slip is obvious to anyone who knows how to think.
Realists do not like or dislike what the data shows…we just want the truth to be known, and despise the lying BS of the thoroughly detestable scaremongering alarmists.
Martin I am well aware of the “blob’ shown by the maps I also live on the east coast where it has been DARN COLD despite that ‘blob’ — so WUWT?
Also North Sea =/= North Atlantic and certainly not the ocean along the north American shore.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/North_Sea_relief_location_map.jpg/511px-North_Sea_relief_location_map.jpg
On the left is the UK
rest of the countries are labeled in this map:
http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/northsea.htm
i need to go and correct that gail, i misread the chart here. http://project.ncof.co.uk/B4G/indicator.php?indicator=sst&tseries=long it was 3 c . i have been trying to get a time series of the last few years for the north east atlantic as a whole as this year has seen several large areas with drops of up to 7c .
http://project.ncof.co.uk/B4G/graphics/series_full_sst.gif
Steven, you are still using the wrong graph. By now you know that the wrong graph is deceptive. This is the correct graph.
Steven is using the correct graph. The same one he has always used.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
What don’t you understand about this one… REAL DATA is hard for you, isn’t it ! 🙂
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2015-11-07-03-22-151.png
Andy, this is the correct graph: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
It explains why the graph Steven used is wrong. It shows that the sea ice extent is more than 1 standard deviation below normal.
Who says its the correct graph.. you ?
Your opinion is irrelevant to any logical discussion.
The graph SG is using is the same graph he has always used.
The Danish Meteorological Institute says this is the correct graph and the one Steven doctored and then posted is incorrect. The Danish Meteorological Institute says so: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Please quote where DMI say SG’s graph is not the one he should use.
Its the one he has been using for several years.
Sorry if the REAL DATA is inconvenient for you again.
Read the comment at the bottom of the correct graph. Then follow the link to the graph Steven used, and read the comment at the bottom of that graph, which Steven removed.
Steven used the wrong graph, and he doctored it. This is the correct graph: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php It shows the Arctic sea ice extent is more than 1 standard deviation below the norm, disproving Steven’s Blog post title claim.
The graph is not doctored , and sane people do not want to hear any more of the switcheroo misdirection nonsense that warmistas constantly push: “Look over here, not over there. Nothing to see over there!”
Yeah, right.
Whether it is graphs of ice extent that then must be switched for ice volume graphs, or phony adjusted historical data, or whatever…the list is long and growing… the endless moving targets of alarmist jackassery is way past wearisome, way past laughable…it is far into the realm of the ludicrous.
The posted graph is the using the data that alarmists have used for the past ten years to try and keep CAGW scaremongering alive after the pause became undeniable (To anyone with a brain cell, anyways) and some other fake BS needed to be dreamt up.
Next up, will it be sea level which begins to rise instead of fall, or cooling which is so dramatic it cannot be adjusted away with a wave of a mouse pad?
Whatever happens next, one thing we can be fairly certain of is that alarmists like you, Martin, will be completely wrong, as always.
How does it feel to bat .000 over DECADES of failed predictions?
Why is it wrong? As long as you use a consistent metric, the illustration is valid. The particular metric sited by Steve goes back to 2005. Your does not.
Oh, come on. If you use the link to the graph Steven used, instead of the doctored copy he posted, you will see that it contains an explanation of why the graph is wrong and where to find the correct graph. Here it is: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php
Martin thinks its wrong.. So what.
Immaterial and irrelevant.
The Danish Meteorological Institute also thinks it is wrong. Read what they wrote: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Martin Smith says:
November 7, 2015 at 1:36 pm
Oh, come on. If you use the link to the graph Steven used, instead of the doctored copy he posted, you will see that it contains an explanation of why the graph is wrong and where to find the correct graph. Here it is: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php
———————————————————————————————————–
Quote where the DMi says “the graph is wrong”?
Read the note at the bottom, rah, and don’t play semantics with me.
It’s not a consistent metric, according to the Danish Meteorological Institute.
It is a consistent metric.. It the one SG has used all along.
And it shows that the current Arctic sea ice level is above all years back to 2005, when measured using the same consistent metric,
That is what the data shows.. get over it. (I know you hate REAL DATA)
Martin Smith says:
November 7, 2015 at 1:46 pm
Read the note at the bottom, rah, and don’t play semantics with me.
————————
I’m not “playing” anything with you Martin. Your the one that is pumping out missinformattion here. DMi doesn’t say anywhere that the graph it continues to update DAILY is “wrong” or not accurate. It does say:
“The plot above replaces an earlier sea ice extent plot, that was based on data with the coastal zones masked out. This coastal mask implied that the previous sea ice extent estimates were underestimated. The new plot displays absolute sea ice extent estimates. The old plot can still be viewed here for a while.”
IOW the graph is not “wrong”. If it were DMi would not continue to update it! Your insistence that Steven MUST change and use the other graph the DMi is publishing because the older version is “wrong” is just plain incorrect. Steven has consistently used the graph he copies and pastes here for years so it provides a consistent history.
You wanna get on peoples bad side just come to a blog and demand the author that he MUST do this or that or the other on his own forum. Wanna get even further on the bad side, misrepresent the reason why. You have done both!
“The plot above replaces an earlier sea ice extent plot, that was based on data with the coastal zones masked out. This coastal mask implied that the previous sea ice extent estimates were underestimated.”
Exactly Rah!
Just read the text quoted above and think about what it is saying.
Translation:
“For years we have been underestimating ice, using a method that made it appear worse than it was, but now that method no longer makes it appear as bad as we want things to appear…so we invented a new graph to make it appear worse than our old method.”
And Martin, your continued use of the word “normal” to refer to the average of the given period is disingenuous to the extreme, and that is putting it politely.
In fact it is a misrepresentation of the known cyclical nature of Arctic seas ice extent and volume!
There is no “normal” level!
What is normal is constant variation, as the ice waxes and wanes over cycles with various periodicities, the most prominent of which seems to be the approximate 60 year one which is so well documented in historical accounts.
There are two possible reasons for your apparent ignorance, Martin: Either you are truly oblivious to Earth history, and in particular the past cycles of Arctic ice, or you are purposely lying.
Which is it?
What are you?
Liar or fool?
You don’t understand the effects of the AMO either, do you.?
And why NH ice levels will now start climbing from the bottom of the cycle.
In fact, the average yearly Arctic sea ice has been climbing for the last few years.
You won’t read that on any alarmista sites though.
The AMO is not part of this discussion. Arctic sea ice extent is way below normal, more than 1 standard deviation from the mean. This is the correct graph: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php
Sorry. This is the correct graph: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Hey Martin Bullsmith,
Why the Arctic sea ice? Why not the Antarctic? Why not global sea ice (stable) or global land ice (stable). If you are any sort of scientist you’d have an answer.
I do have an answer. The answer is: We are discussing Arctic sea ice extent, because Steven Goddard wrote a blog post about it, falsely claiming it is growing and using a doctored, incorrect graph in his attempt to prove it.
No Arctic sea ice is way ABOVE normal for the current interglacial.
For the first 3/4 of the Holocene, zero sea ice was the norm.
If you want to cherry pick a small period based on the coldest period in the last half century, starting at the base of the AMO.. then you are obviously basing your comments on GROSS IGNORANCE and propaganda… yet again.
That’s irrelevant, Andy. The trend is down, steeply so, and AGW is the cause.
“The AMO is not part of this discussion”
The AMO is very much part of the discussion, because it explains why 1979 had a lot of Arctic sea ice (your chosen reference point of course) and explains why Arctic sea ice is now starting to build up again.
No it isn’t, Andy. This discussion is about Steven’s claim that Arctic sea ice is growing. It’s not. Steven used the wrong graph, and he doctored it. This is the correct graph: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php It shows the Arctic sea ice extent is more than 1 standard deviation below the norm, disproving Steven’s Blog post title claim.
The trend has started to reverse, and its has all been to do with the AMO.
Nope. The trend has not started to reverse, ad there is no forcing that could cause such a reversal.
Steven used the wrong graph, and he doctored it. This is the correct graph: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php It shows the Arctic sea ice extent is more than 1 standard deviation below the norm, disproving Steven’s Blog post title claim.
People like Martin will continue to latch onto one single data point thinking it proves thie case. When you point out contrary evidence they charge that you are going off topic. It’s like arguing with a 6 year old.
Martin does not seem to understand that using the same metric that he always has, SG has shown a significant increase. Martin will try any redirection he can to detract from that inconvenient truth.
Your description fits you to a T, Bob.
“That’s irrelevant, Andy.”
Love the way you again TOTALLY IGNORE reality.
During the first 3/4 of the Holocene the Arctic was often ice free in summer (proven by biomarkers) We have in fact only just finished climbing out of the COLDEST period in the whole of the last 10,00 years.
Its a pity you don’t have more understand of all this stuff, and the AMO etc.. because you really are coming across more and more as a brain-washed ignorant drone with NOTHING to back up any of your claims.
It’s irrelevant to this discussion, andy, which is about the misleading graph Steven used, and how he made it even more misleading. Deliberately.
Steven used the wrong graph, and he doctored it. This is the correct graph: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php It shows the Arctic sea ice extent is more than 1 standard deviation below the norm, disproving Steven’s Blog post title claim.
“Nope. The trend has not started to reverse, ad there is no forcing that could cause such a reversal”.
Martin look at the date on the graph.
The date on which graph?
The trend has started to reverse.
Remain ignorant.. it suits you.
Your so-called “mean” is based on a pitifully small period that just happens to coincide with the dip in the AMO.
But that is what alarmists have to do to fabricate any alarm. Cherry-pick the colder period to show warming.
You can’t determine that a long term trend with lots of noise in it is reversing by looking at one or two years. You can’t do that. The trend i not reversing. Besides, there is no cause that can reverse it at the moment.
Never mind, read it wrong
SG is not using a misleading graph. He is using the same graph he has always used.
You just don’t like the REAL DATA it is showing.
It’s the wrong graph, Andy. Steven used the wrong graph, and he doctored it. This is the correct graph: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php It shows the Arctic sea ice extent is more than 1 standard deviation below the norm, disproving Steven’s Blog post title claim.
From your much ballyhooed link…
The plot above replaces an earlier sea ice extent plot, that was based on data with the coastal zones masked out. This coastal mask implied that the previous sea ice extent estimates were underestimated. The new plot displays absolute sea ice extent estimates. The old plot can still be viewed here for a while.
They only say that they are replacing the old (inconvenient) graph with a new (cherry picked) graph, and do not say that the old graph is “wrong”. They claim the old graph “implied” previous estimates were underestimated. You do understand that these measurements are based upon models, right? And just what is an “absolute estimate”? 😆
SG has NOT used the wrong graph.. he has used the same graph he always uses.
He has NOT doctored the graph.
The one he is using is FAR more relevant because it shows that the Arctic sea ice level is NOW ABOVE ALL YEARS BACK TO 2005. (measured using the same system)
I know you can’t abide REAL DATA…. but the data is what it is, and you are not in a position to change it. Bad luck.
Also, the mean is meaningless because it is based on a very small period at the very bottom of the AMO cycle.
That cycle has now turned, and the Arctic sea ice is starting to respond accordingly.
“Nope. The trend has not started to reverse, ad there is no forcing that could cause such a reversal” (sic)
Well, there it is.
You are on record Martin, as claiming it is impossible for Arctic ice to reverse trend and grow.
This is plainly wrong, as anyone who chooses to subscribe to evidence and observation based science can plainly see.
You alarmist nonsense is really over the top Martin.
You are on record here, a permanent record as it turns out, as a science denier.
Funny,. is it not, how nearly every single utterance of alarmist turns out to be a clear case of psychological projection, as they try to foist there own mental defects onto others?
It must be the cognitive dissonance of insisting on continuing to believe an obvious lie.
I am guessing I am not the only one here who feels actual pity for you, sir.
Please do not feed the troll!
I know it’s tempting, but you must R E S I S T !
oh look, we gotta live one here. there is nothing wrong with the 30% extent graph and well you know it martin. i have been in contact with dmi on a few occasions this year and they say they will maintain both the 30% and 15% charts as long as the funding is there to do so.
it was the original metric used by most people ,so is actually more relevant than the recent use of 15% .
I am using the best Arctic sea ice graph available, and your idiotic comments are … idiotic..
http://www.hyzercreek.com/Screenshot%20(32)%20.jpg
Irrelevant, Morgan. Steven used the wrong graph, and he doctored it. This is the correct graph: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php It shows the Arctic sea ice extent is more than 1 standard deviation below the norm, disproving Steven’s Blog post title claim.
SG has NOT used the wrong graph.. he has used the same graph he always uses.
He has NOT doctored the graph.
The one he is using is FAR more relevant because it shows that the Arctic sea ice level is NOW ABOVE ALL YEARS BACK TO 2005. (measured using the same system)
I know you can’t abide REAL DATA…. but the data is what it is, and you are not in a position to change it. Bad luck.
Also, the mean is meaningless because it is based on a very small period at the very bottom of the AMO cycle.
That cycle has now turned, and the Arctic sea ice is starting to respond accordingly.
“Steven used the wrong graph, and he doctored it”
Bollox.
Stop making stuff up.
catweazle666 says:
November 7, 2015 at 4:52 pm
Please do not feed the troll!
I know it’s tempting, but you must R E S I S T !
That didn’t last long! 😆
But Catweazle, it is so much fun to play wack-a-mole with trols although not very sporting when the mole is mentally unarmed.
Martin is a liar. I will block him soon if he keeps this up.
better than that tony, post his ip addy up, looks like auk based name, if nearby i will go and knock on his door and see how smart he is face to face. i am getting sick to the back teeth of these cretins.
i live fairly near another cretin, “and then there’s physics” . i long for the day i bump into him, i really do 🙂
https://coloradowellington.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/troll-doing-its-thing.jpg
Martin, send somebody else from Obama’s Department of Climate Propaganda, you aren’t doing well here.
I’m not an Obama fan, Morgan. Didn’t vote for him last time. Steven used the wrong graph, and he doctored it. This is the correct graph: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php It shows the Arctic sea ice extent is more than 1 standard deviation below the norm, disproving Steven’s Blog post title claim.
SG has NOT used the wrong graph.. he has used the same graph he always uses.
He has NOT doctored the graph.
The one he is using is FAR more relevant because it shows that the Arctic sea ice level is NOW ABOVE ALL YEARS BACK TO 2005. (measured using the same system)
I know you can’t abide REAL DATA…. but the data is what it is, and you are not in a position to change it. Bad luck.
Also, the mean is meaningless because it is based on a very small period at the very bottom of the AMO cycle.
That cycle has now turned, and the Arctic sea ice is starting to respond accordingly.
Evidently Martin subscribes to the belief that repeating a lie over and over again will cause it to morph into truth.
This may work on the ignorant and the weak-minded, but not on people who pay attention and have actual knowledge of the subject matter at hand.
You make yourself look quite ridiculous Martin.
Steven says that ice has grown by four million km^2 since Sept 1st, setting a growth record. You say that is wrong because ice area is more than one SD below normal. You must realize that the two statements are not mutually exclusive. One does not disprove the other.
Actually to please MS why don’t we show him a 100% warmista site that has to show the real picture for both poles cryosphere today. NH hasn’t changed for 4 years and SH has been consistently way way above for 4 years. The NH data I believe has been fiddled because they change the boundaries of each section. They cant do that for SH ice its one whole area. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
of course what MS is avoiding is the fact that NH is still 1sd below for whatever average they fiddled but its still highest for the last 12 years and of course Greenland is really increasing dramatically.
And of course Pole ice has probably no correlation whatsoever with global temps and has never had. Its more like AMO PDO and continental shift *ie snowball earth
BTw this is a genuine graph from DMI its NOT doctored you must be really very very young or mentally problematic LOL
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php READ READ LOOK LOOK
Steven doctored it by removing the qualifying comment at the bottom, written by DMI, explaining why the the graph should not be used and linking to the graph that should be used.
SG has NOT used the wrong graph.. he has used the same graph he always uses.
He has NOT doctored the graph.
The one he is using is FAR more relevant because it shows that the Arctic sea ice level is NOW ABOVE ALL YEARS BACK TO 2005. (measured using the same system)
I know you can’t abide REAL DATA…. but the data is what it is, and you are not in a position to change it. Bad luck.
Also, the mean is meaningless because it is based on a very small period at the very bottom of the AMO cycle.
That cycle has now turned, and the Arctic sea ice is starting to respond accordingly.
Also 30 percent is a more stable metric with less extraneous flux.
Martin Smith. you are a tiresome and discredited troll.
Your insistence that sane people must subscribe to alarmist doublespeak and misdirection is ludicrous and silly.
Why do you not make a decision to be on the side of those who use information to become educated to actual truth, instead of one who latches onto a lie and then goes down with that ship of fools?
That statement is not part of the chart. No doctoring.
BS! He provided the link for anyone to go see that statement that IS NOT PART OF THE GRAPH. Again, DMi still updates that graph daily! What does that tell you Martin?
dmi statement “Please notice, that the sea ice extent in this plot is calculated with the coastal zones masked out. To see the absolute extent, go to this page. ”
the map with coastal zones masked out is actually more accurate as there is less ambiguity involved in discerning what is and is not ice.
…correct, and the chart Tony links to has always done this.
We have focus on future climate projections as a consequence of the anthropogenic greenhouse emissions…
Funding: EU-FP7 programme.
http://research.dmi.dk/research/research-topics/climate/
“if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”
-Abraham Maslow, “The Psychology of Science”
Well, once again, we are repeating ourselves, so let’s end this. Move on.
When you have nothing to offer by way of real data….. yes, move on.
ps.. you do realise that SG’s graph actually UNDER-ESTIMATES the real amount of sea ice, don’t you 🙂
So funny.. :-
How many feet can you fit in your mouth at one time, bozo !!
“Well, once again, we are repeating ourselves, so let’s end this.”
You are the one who can only lie, and choose to repeat yourself over and over again.
I for one can post a nearly limitless litany of separate and valid criticisms of your alarmist meme.
There are so many holes in the sieve of CAGW alarmism, it is easy to find new ways to discredit it.
The truth is akin to a monolithic wall, but the scaremongering memes of warmistas is a flimsy spider-web of hooey and bunkum.
“Move on.”
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
This is not your show dude, and no one is obligated to pay one whit of attention to anything you say.
Its 30% ice not 15% the graph you refer too. In fact its more accurate as it shows 30% thick ice you silly dolt LOL
The farce is strong with this one, that is for sure 😉
Notice how it is always Ad Homs not data? and if it is data it is Straw Man (15% instead of 30%)
Martin Smith says:
And that statement is just refried BS. Even NASA said so.
2007: Arctic Sea ice loss – “it’s the wind” says NASA
2012: NASA finally admits it Arctic cyclone in August ‘broke up’ and ‘wreaked havoc’ on sea ice — Reuters reports Arctic storm played ‘key role’ in this season’s sea ice reduction.
As Stephen has been showing the Arctic seaice has been recovering since these storms blew the ice out into the warm North Atlantic.
Once the NAO turns the Arctic will have gains in ice.
67,796.6 Manhattans!
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
If you didn’t believe in the climate scam, you should understand how it operates now…
In-your-face lies from activist scientists and their environmental extremist media outlets.
And yet another clear example of why activist media outlets like The Guardian and The New York Times are the last places on earth to read the truth on ‘global warming’.
+1
I think UK and Europe are expected to be below normal cold this year? I’ve heard about certain birds migrating South much sooner than other years, indicators of a colder winter coming.
How do warmistas expect to heat their homes this winter? With warm wishes and delusions of warming? Why don’t they show us all how it’s done and turn off their furnaces?
That was the Siberian swans who leave just ahead of the bad weather. They arrived 25 days early
Britain faces longest winter in 50 years after earliest ever arrival of Siberian swan. The arrival of winter, traditionally heralded by the migration of Siberian swans, has come early as 300 birds flock to Britain
Oh how I love reading this blog on a cold Sunday morning. Thanks guys!
Now Sunshine hours is graph is starting to agree with DMI. Significant climb in the last couple days:
https://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/arctic_sea_ice_extent_zoomed_2015_day_311_1981-2010.png?w=1024&h=682
In the next few days it will be up within 1sd of the cold period mean.
If it keeps its steepish climb, it may even reach that mean later this year.
That would be a really bad sign this early after the peak in the AMO cycle.
The current El Nino is trying to balance out the sleepy sun by releasing a lot of ocean energy. When that’s gone, I suspect things could cool quite rapidly.
Not Good !!
Yeah, the alarmists never seem to figure out that an El Nino is evidence of the heat in the ocean headed out to space. If Tallbloke & Co. are correct the El Ninos usually show on the downhill side of a solar cycle. On longer timescales, we have recently confirmed that runs of El Nino events which release a lot of energy from the oceans are initiated on the falling side of the solar cycle, never on the upswing.
An El Nino is an OCEAN COOLING event.
Yes it transfers that energy into the troposphere, but that means it can be then be transferred to the upper atmosphere and radiated away.
The whole system is always trying to balance itself between “energy in” and “energy out”
and at the moment, “energy in” is dropping significantly, so its obvious that energy out must increase to balance.
El Ninos are one of the mechanisms for achieving this balance.
This is getting tiring. I would ask mister warmunist how it was possible for submarines to surface at the north pole in 1958 and again in 1959, but it has been impossible for the last couple of years. Ice is growing, and the people who claim to care about the climate just pretend and try to lie the problem away, since their real concern is with their watermelon cause, not saving anything on this planet except themselves. Cold can be a real problem. Heat can’t. There are absolute limits on how hot it can get, and humans can survive it all. Crops grow fine at 50C. Not so much closer to 0.
I have to offer an objection to this post as it seems to me a blatant example of cherry-picking. Our own National Snow and Ice Data Center has data going back to 1979; their information shows that while (contrary to the gorebots) the Arctic isn’t on the cusp of being ice-free, ice there isn’t exactly booming, either: at present, it is just inside the bottom of the +/- 2s range based on 1981 – 2010 data. The data showed here only go back to ’05 and apparently shows coastal zones masked out. If one includes them, the picture is very different, much more in line with NSIDC.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries_thumb.png
Or do I read the data wrong?