Arctic Sea Ice Melt On Track To Set New Record Low in 2011
by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY on 07.19.11
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
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
- conrad ziefle on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- Greg in NZ on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- arn on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- Trevor on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- czechlist on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- arn on COP29 Preview
- arn on COP29 Preview
- conrad ziefle on COP29 Preview
- conrad ziefle on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- stewartpid on COP29 Preview
2011 still tracking 2006.
9/14/2006 5,781,719
8/12/2011 5,840,000
OVER 60,000 KM and barely a month left with all that cold weather coming up that you told us about. That is more than 75 Manhattans that would have to melt by then.
Are you as dense as you pretend to be?
Steve,
I am sorry. I thought you had made 7 or 8 posts with the headline I wrote above.
I am just pointing out how wrong that treehugger nut was and how accurate your analysis is.
I have made it 100% clear that I am not making any forecasts of extent. Tracking does not mean identical, it means it is following a similar pattern. I always assume the audience has a brain.
I don’t think assumption is going to help in this case…
OK, a simple question. Why do you say 2011 is tracking 2006, but not that it is tracking 2010, 2008 or 2007? What is special about 2006?
In fact, I worked it out myself. To see which previous year is most similar to the current year, we want the average of the squared residuals. Calculating this, the results (sorted lowest to highest) are as follows:
2007 2.431 E+13
2010 2.568 E+13
2009 2.687 E+13
2006 2.756 E+13
2005 2.805 E+13
2008 2.830 E+13
2003 3.055 E+13
2004 3.077 E+13
2002 5.745 E+13
Thus, 2011 is most similar to 2007 for the year to date. 2010 and 2009 are also both closer than 2006. (Note that data is only available from June onwards for 2002). One could argue that we’re only concerned with the melt season, i.e. from ~May onwards. Averaging residuals from May to date gives the following results:
2007 3.620 E+13
2010 3.817 E+13
2009 3.993 E+13
2006 4.103 E+13
2008 4.130 E+13
2005 4.177 E+13
2004 4.502 E+13
2003 4.518 E+13
2002 5.745 E+13
The order is essentially unchanged apart from swapping 2008 and 2005, so the conclusions remain the same. So, while I suppose it’s fair to say that in some sense 2011 is “tracking” 2006, it is tracking 2007, 2010 and 2009 more closely.
Steve,
Ah, so you meant to say 2011 is tracking EVERY year! That makes perfect sense then.
It probably does for a juggling ass clown Bill Nye wannabe like you. Don’t you have a bowtie to pick up at the dry cleaners or some chain saws to juggle?
Look, I can’t help it if you are dim-witted
Tony, it’s late in the game, so I’ll tell you something……. tracking doesn’t mean identical…… it means relative. Will it equal anything? I doubt it. Will it reflect similar to other years? Probably.
BTW, I believe one of the Joe’s predicted this, but we’re suppose to have another exceptionally cold year, too. Which isn’t a great prediction…..my mom has informed me that we have an equilibrium the earth seeks. Not in so many words, mind you, but to state if we have an exceptionally warm summer, we should have an exceaptionally cold winter. ….. but that would be from local observations only.
SUYTS,
isn’t that what I said above. 2011 is tracking every year. How has it been tracking 2006 any more than 2003, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10? What rationale is there for saying the word tracking unless you are making a strong implication that it is MORE similar to one data set than another?
You mean like Hansen as you suggest, ass clown, except Hansen said it and you like to spin it.
This whole exercise is similar to counting angels dancing on the head of a pin, because the differences are so tiny and trivial. If the sea ice extent were to make a large breakout in one direction, that would be newsworthy, but since that is not the case, it’s a non-event.
Exactly, Andy. And remember too that we are measuring down to 15% ice coverage, so ice could drop from 15% to 14% and the data would show it had “disappeared”.
The impression given by many alarmists is that a whole 100% sheet of ice just disappears.
Paul,
and an increase from 14-15% and it magically re appears.
That very well may be the impression given by alarmists, but that is the actual science. There has to be a determination at some point. And it is perfectly reasonable for non alarmists to point out that fact.
The impression given by repeatedly saying 2011 is tracking 2006 is that ice extent is recovering, and that it is more closely associated with 2006 than other years. That impression as Peter has pointed out, is not accurate.
Obsessive compulsive dimwits
All very interesting Tony. But it has absolutely relevance to anything I just said.
Paul,
please explain.
i directly responded to each point in your comment.
You pointed out that 15-14% would mean it disappeared. i pointed out that the opposite was true. that seems to me to be relevant.
You pointed out that alarmist can give the impression that the ice sheet disappears. i acknowledge that. and then point out that saying 2011 is tracking 206 gives the impression that the ice is recovering. I am a fan of neither impression, being a skeptic and all.
so unless you are referring to a different comment my response was relevant. Unless you left the “no’ out of your comment on purpose and are agreeing with me.
Do global warmers understand graphs?
Amino,
Please explain. Peter’s specific analysis makes sense to me.
So I take it that you believe there will be a record low this year. The title of this article is “Arctic Sea Ice Melt On Track To Set New Record Low in 2011”
Steve,
Unlike you I made a very specific prediction. I have a feeling it will be a bit lower than the actual. if so my dynamic heuristic model will need some tweaking.
As for the link. There is nothing inacurate about it. On 7/19, the ice melt WAS on track to break the 2007 record. It WAS the lowest recorded IE for that date. It was certainly more “on track” to beat 2007 than to come close to 2006. (though it could conceivably come to screeching halt today and prove all those warmists wrong). The thing about the link is that one has to extrapolate. To me it is like saying Prince Fielder has hit 38 home runs by the all star break. That puts him on track to breaking the ML record. If one believes that the level of pitching has gone down in recent years, one could say he has a good chance of breaking the record. However it is more likely that there was some luck involved and he will end up with 68 by the end of the season rather than 76.
this, of course, precludes the use of steroids or unscrupulous scientists taking the satellite data and using dark blue crayons to erase some of the ice.
There aren’t going to be any records broken this year http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Steve,
JUST as I predicted!