They are showing that ice volume is 50% of 2008 – the year when Serreze forcast an ice-free North Pole, because the ice was so thin.
PIOMAS.vol.daily.1979.2012.Current.v2.dat.gz (Version 2.0)
Even more bizarre is that they show the average thickness (volume divided by area) of the ice at the end of July being 1.4 metres. If that were true it would almost all melt by the end of August.
The US Navy shows the ice being much thicker than PIOMAS
What’s your grounds for your final assertion? I don’t think 1.4 metres of thickness loss in August is realistic except at the very edges of the pack.
The ice is much thicker near the Canadian coast (several metres). If the average was 1.4 metres, then there would have to be vast regions less than 0.75 metres.
Thank you Steven for keeping us up to date on what is going on in the continueing saga of the ice story. It is shamefull that various government agencies are willing to interpert the data in such a manner as to promote an agenda instead of representing the truth. I would be far more willing to believe the navy reports than those government agencies which have shown themselves willing to misrepresent the truth. The navy does need to have accurate ice information and if they are willing to allow the average people access to actual , real information they have it is helpfull. Of course the fact that they are military makes me wonder about anything they say as it could be they don’t want to tell what they really know. It has reached the point that I am distrustfull of anything said by any government agency as we have seen so many examples of disinformation put out that their credibility is in tatters. Who ya gonna believe ? The government or your own eyes?
What is the source of that broken line? It isn’t PIOMAS. It’s someone’s attempt to extrapolate. Such extrapolation is hazardous given the non-linear nature of the evolution of Arctic summer sea ice minima. Plausibly, as one reaches summers where the thin ice disappears rapidly, the trend will slow for a time as a greater share of the remaining ice is thicker and will, therefore, survive successive summers even as it grows thinner during each summer minimum. In short, it is very unlikely that the 2016 summer ice minimum in the Arctic will fall to 0 and no such outcome is called for on PIOMAS.
It is indeed non linear. As the ice gets thinner and more dispersed, it melts more easily. My extrapolation was conservative.
As Peter Wadhams at Cambridge said : “in the end it will all met away quite suddenly”
The sharp downturn in the PIOMAS plot confirms this.
Thanks for verifying that you did the extrapolation. So now it is clear, that’s your interpretation of PIOMAS data. That’s very different from PIOMAS’s “showing an ice free” Arctic region by July 2016.
“Thanks for verifying that you did the extrapolation. So now it is clear, that’s your interpretation of PIOMAS data. That’s very different from PIOMAS’s “showing an ice free” Arctic region by July 2016.”
He could have been honest about that in his original post. I looked through the PIOMASS website and google to see where that graph was derived and couldn’t find it. So, he didn’t bother to cite his data or say that he made the graph or extrapolated it, or what formula he used to extrapolate the data.
If you did that in a peer-reviewed paper, you’d never get published. At least in peer-review they require a little thing called honesty.
Did Wot actually say that at least in peer review honesty is required ? Hahahahahahaha that was hilarious coming from a warmista. Hahahahahahahahahaha , everytime I think of his statement I grin . Hahahahahaha peer hahahahahaha review hahahahaha warmist hahahahaha honesty hahahahahaha that is the best joke of the day and should be amplified on other blog sites hahahahahahaha I can’t stop grinning. WOT you missed your calling, you are a comedien .
“Did Wot actually say that at least in peer review honesty is required ? Hahahahahahaha that was hilarious coming from a warmista. Hahahahahahahahahaha , everytime I think of his statement I grin . Hahahahahaha peer hahahahahaha review hahahahaha warmist hahahahaha honesty hahahahahaha that is the best joke of the day and should be amplified on other blog sites hahahahahahaha I can’t stop grinning. WOT you missed your calling, you are a comedien .”
Good job with your spell check there and listing of data and citations.
What data or citations are you looking for ? It is now general knowledge , accepted fact that the warmista peer review process is a you slap my back I’ll slap yours deal. A rubber stamp if you are on the team ! The debate is over , the results are in . As far as spelling goes , I think you understood what I was saying. I’m still laughing at your peer review statement. You respnded well with quote : quite dignity and grace hahahahahaha reference young frankenstien. Did you catch the citation .
Sutherland and WOT, do you not clue in to Steven’s sense of humour by now? In linearly extrapolating the PIOMAS data Steven is merely mocking the alarmist predictions of the disappearance of Arctic ice in the near future.
“Sutherland and WOT, do you not clue in to Steven’s sense of humour by now? In linearly extrapolating the PIOMAS data Steven is merely mocking the alarmist predictions of the disappearance of Arctic ice in the near future.”
If you spelled ‘humour’ the way you did you are either Canadian or British. If you are Canadian, I can understand you lacking a sense of humor, but I can’t forgive it if you are British.
Humor is humorous. This was neither a joke or particularly funny. It was a dishonest representation of the data which Goddard didn’t even point out. If someone who doesn’t know any better reads that post, they’ll think PIOMAS was producing that trend line, when they weren’t.
Of course, many people who read this blog aren’t well informed and will think exactly that.
You are hopeless. PIOMAS has been exaggerating ice loss and is just about to run of BS space. That is what the graph shows.
Your critical thinking skills need a big step up.
Peer review doesn’t mean squat when all the peers are alarmists. It’s all one happy family with no true skeptics allowed at the table. Also, when all of the peers are slobbering for grants from the same agenda driven Government agencies.
Robert,
If he chooses to give his opinion, that’s one thing. Claiming that PIOMAS is calling for the Arctic to become ice free by July 2016 is quite another.
The PIOMAS linear extrapolation clearly shows shows ice free July on or around 2016.
But as we all know, linear is not realistic. If their data was correct, it would have to be sooner than 2016.
WOT,
I am Canadian and perhaps we do have a different sense of humour. Anyway, there are lots of Canadian comedians making it big time in the US so our sense of humour can’t be all that different. But I did get a good laugh out of your lame and pathetic attempt to score some kind of points.
PIOMAS doesn’t make linear extrapolations. You made a linear extrapolation from the PIOMAS data and said that it was your extrapolation. It is now clear this is your interpretation. I, for one, disagree with that interpretation on account of the non-linear nature of the evolution of summer ice minima.
Yes, it should be steeper than linear, because the remaining ice becomes increasingly vulnerable as the pack depletes. My extrapolation is very conservative.
“Even more bizarre is that they show the average thickness (volume divided by area) of the ice at the end of July being 1.4 metres. If that were true it would almost all melt by the end of August.”
Citation needed. I couldn’t find this claim anywhere.
It is a really tricky calculation. I divided PIOMAS ice volume by UIUC ice area.
I think WOT and DON are BOTS. Sounds like Seri or Suri or Hal 2000
Steve that high-falutin’ maths will just confuse him. Plus, was the advanced statistics that went into your calculation peer reviewed by Michael Mann’s team?
“It is a really tricky calculation. I divided PIOMAS ice volume by UIUC ice area.”
With no sources for your original data, and no numbers posted. The second image also does not have an average thickness – or even units posted. So, you cannot compare by ‘eyeballing’ it.
The link for the piomas data is right below the graph. Do you need glasses?
“The link for the piomas data is right below the graph. Do you need glasses?”
You linked to a ‘dat’ file. I have no way of parsing that data. Why couldn’t you have posted and sourced the two numbers you used for your formula? Is it that difficult?
Say WOT , as the self appointed guardian of proper english and spelling what is your source for the word sourced ? I checked my source for words and spelling ( Webster Deluxe Unabridged Dictionary second edition ) and can find no listing for the word sourced . When you start calling people on words and spelling , you open the door to scrutiny of yourself. I try to spell correctly but I will accassionaly ( did you catch that? ) make a mistake . As long as the point gets accross I’m ok with that. Steven made a statement and indicated the file that originated his thought , if you want to dispute him you can go to that file and attempt to come up with a rebuttal.
None of us are professional writers or proof readers and some of us have a life and other things to do. So typos or misspelled words should not be part of the discussion.
SAy WOT , from reading Viscount Monctons’ writing I’ve come to understand that your arguments are mainly appeals to authority as you harp on the vehicle and not the message. You ask where is the data and then don’t utilize it in a meaningfull manner. I’m still laughing about your peer review and honesty joke . Reference for that statement is several comments up , hahahahaha.
Yes , Andy DC , I agree with you on grammer and spelling. I was taking WOT to task because further up the tread he was critical of my spelling .
sourcedpast participle, past tense of source (Verb)
Verb:
Obtain from a particular source: “each type of coffee is sourced from one country”.
Merriam-Webster – The Free Dictionary
BLA, BLA, BLA! whatever…
Thankfully the lack or abundance of ice has nothing to do with CO2.
Yes tckev , and we should never let them forget or live that down. The country and parts of the world have already wasted twenty years of time and effort on a wild theory that should have been rejected immediately.
Thank-you, we should never forget that the only hook they have to hang the whole theory on is that CO2 controls weather and climate. All historical record indicate that this (CO2 levels) are not the cause but an effect (of global temperature change).
Any statements from authority figures trying to say that we are a major movers of the climate are wrong and propagated by those who usually wish to profit by such statements.
The science of climate is a long way from settled and the human effect on it, and CO2’s place in it, is yet to be proved.
The decline in arctic sea ice extent this summer gives the ever-more desperate CO2 alarmists something they can point to as confirmation of their “mankind is warming the earth” hypothesis. As their pet theory crumbles in the face of mounting observational and empirical evidence, they are reduced to screaming “I told you so” about any anomalous or adverse weather event (tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires, droughts, floods, melting sea ice and, yes, even blizzards) in a last-ditch attempt to prop of up their flimsy manufactured scare story. It’s like watching a small child in the darkness clinging to his favorite Teddy Bear as the lights go out.
By the way, accurate sea ice measurement goes back only as far as 1979 — the advent of the satellite era. There are plenty of reports of declining arctic sea ice, all well publicized, going back to the 1920s. Apparently, sea ice extent fluctuated quite dramatically before the recent rise in CO2 levels. Declines and increases in polar sea ice have been occurring naturally for millions of years. Mankind’s impact, assuming there is any at all, is the equivalent of a fart in a hurricane.
Many of today’s climate alarmists, when faced with hard empirical evidence contradicting their theoretical findings, chooses to blame the evidence and re-embrace the theory. Love of one’s theory is one of the great evils of our day.
As Richard P. Feynman once wrote:
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is; it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Temperatures across most of the Arctic Basin are dropping below freezing. It would require an extraordinary weather event to bring 2012 below 2007.
I notice that NSIDC currently shows sea extent almost right on top of the 2007 line. There is plenty of time in this melt season for 2012 extent to increase beyond the 2007 minimum.
As I mentioned above, the Alarmists are becoming increasingly desperate. The melt season hasn’t ended, and they’re acting like a global warming Armeggedon is occurring in the arctic because of a slight decline in sea ice. They seem to be engaged in a high-stakes verbal duel with the AGW skeptics, dutifully defending the honor of their jilted theory while standing tall as the True Keepers of Scientific Truth.
The sky-is-falling government doomsayers and taxpayer-funded scientist fatcats in academia simply can’t concede the fact that their fictional theory of CO2-induced runaway global warming has been discredited seven ways from Sunday. It’s pure buncombe.
Peer Review: Your friends agree that you are as smart as you think you are.