Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
Recent Comments
- stewartpid on COP29 Preview
- GeologyJim on A Giant Eyesore
- GeologyJim on COP29 Preview
- GeologyJim on COP29 Preview
- arn on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Richard E Fritz on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- William on A Giant Eyesore
- arn on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- Gordon Vigurs on COP29 Preview
- Peter Carroll on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
“On March 7, 2011, Arctic sea ice likely reached its maximum extent for the year,”
Only a month late…
…ice didn’t get the memo
And tied 2006 again…
…which means nothing has happened in the past five years
The question that needs to be asked is 1979-2000 really normal?
and what made so much ice in that time period?
Didn’t this happen last year too?
Reports of the earth’s demise have been greatly exaggerated.
I don’t know about for the maximum, but it did happen for the minimum in Sept.
On the other hand, these small changes in March/April don’t seem to matter much more than to get egg on the faces of the overly confident. I think the most important thing to get from these results is how close the ice is to it’s previous “healthy” condition. When a week of “favorable” weather cuts the ice “deficit” by 20% or more, it means the ice isn’t that unhealthy after all. The same goes for the minimum…2010 matched 2006 (the last year before the ice apocalypse) within 2-3 weeks after its minimum, showing that it wasn’t that different after all (note that after that 2010 went back lower than 2006 for quite some time, but not by a huge margin).
The DMI temperatures are probably a better indicator for ice growth, and they’re running high. SSTs might even be better…how are they doing in the far north?
-Scott
There was a bump up last year around this time too.
JAXA
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
You’re right, getting overly confident about Arctic ice is dicey. Richard Lindzen says it’s highly variable. He also talks about the DMi temps
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltLnco6FJL0
To their credit, the NSIDC did say “appeared to reach its maximum” and “..there is still a chance that the ice extent could expand again..”.
They generally have reports at the beginning of each month, and then of course this one for March 23rd which they figured was the beginning of the melt. It’ll be interesting to see if they have an early April report, and what exactly they will say.
Here’s last April’s:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2010/040610.html
..and May’s:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2010/050410.html
A graph on which shows the melt was well underway at the very beginning of April. What was Serreze saying about the melt season becoming longer? I guess he meant “it is taking longer to melt”
Dave, appearing and still a chance…
.. is called hedging your bets
It’s like saying there’s a 50% chance
Moron Scientists predict ice-free Arctic in 2013. We are now at the tipping point, blah blah blah. Of course the are going to be 100% wrong with their prediction, but that is meaningless, they will just move on to the next scare.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztz3ZdPbdKo&feature=related
I disagree. They will simply move the death date forward. Keep tuned and you will see this prediction will come into fruition.
Did Al baby head to the arctic to see all the melting?
The warmists are going to have a hissy fit!
They do run a 5 day average though so we may find it has not beaten their previous call. JAXA for extent and Crysosphere for area show it not going past the earlier maximum.
Andy
PS It is cold in the Bering at the moment and ice has stopped retreating their and put on a bit.
The five day average would bring the numbers down, not up.
That’s what I am saying, they have just taken a dive on JAXA but NSIDC has not factored it in yet, I expect it to go down.
Andy
It is a lagging average, which means that it is dragged down by the previous days.
Well lets see
Andy
No, the point is that you won’t see. Yesterday’s NSIDC reading was probably the highest for the year, but their averaging filter hides it.
Neither IARC-JAXA nor NSIDC have it going above the March 7/8 maximum. For the NSIDC graph, take a ruler or other straight object and carefully hold it level across the earlier max. You will see that the March 7/8 max has not been surpassed. And the IARC JAXA data for April 3 shows a sharp decline, so it is unlikely that either of the two sources would have it go above the max of March 7/8 before declining noticeably from this local maximum.
I’d be willing to bet at 500:1 odds on this.
DMI shows a peak. NSIDC uses a running mean and don’t publish their data. Impossible to imagine that sharp upturn without a very high daily value yesterday.
You put the NSIDC graph first on this page to show your point, and now you’re jumping to an obscure source like DMI, this is moving the goalposts.
Them darn foregineers always messing up. Can’t trust them soccer loving commies in Europe
That’s not the point. The point is that DMI and ROOS seem less quality controlled than the other sources. I find NSIDC and IARC-JAXA trustworthy because they use two DIFFERENT satellites and manage to agree with each other quite well anyway.
The point is that we will never know what the NSIDC value was yesterday, because they don’t make their data public.
And also because the DMI dataset is clearly not quality controlled, as for instance you see those weird downward spikes in Autumn 2009.
Wind
Wind doesn’t create fluctuations that large on that small a time scale. Nice try, though.
A strong wind can easily move the ice edge by 50 miles in one day.
OK, but IARC-JAXA agrees with NSIDC, and besides, in a few days (Or maybe today or tomorrow?) NSIDC will confirm the March 7/8 maximum and you will see that I am right.
DMI uses a more meaningful 30% concentration to determine extent. NSIDC and JAXA use 15%, which is more volatile.
1. The % concentration threshold isn’t the only criterion of relevance.
2. Maybe 50 miles in one day locally, but it won’t be all compacted or spread simultaneously around the entire ice edge by 50 miles in one day. After all, the wind cannot blow north or south everywhere at one time, or else that air would have nowhere to go…
Clarification: Willing to bet at 500:1 odds that the March 7/8 max will not be surpassed according to either NSIDC or IARC-JAXA until winter 2012 or later.