The press continues to talk incessantly about the Arctic meltdown, while the ice itself is about to set a record high for the date in the DMI database.
Mother Nature seems to be sending the 10/10/10 religious worshipers yet another message.
h/t to M Carpenter
I can’t believe you haven’t weighed in on this bizarre Wegman story. It’s got to look like a big ball of yarn to a cat like you.
Phil? Gates?
Bueller…..Bueller…..Bueller….
Desperate for a record?
Showing a bit more data puts the usual cherry picker into perspective.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
A bit more data shows how really desperate you’ve become.
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20101004_Figure2.png
I get it. We are at an all time record low and a six year high simultaneously.
Where has anyone written that todays current sea ice extent is a record low?
You get it?
If you go back to June the ice extent was at a six year low. Isn’t cherry picking fun? The difference is that I know it is cherry picking and wouldn’t attempt to base a scientific argument on it.
We are at an all time record low and a six year high simultaneously.
Global warming is a nice study in psychology. People are seeing what they want to see.
Meanwhile it looks like there could be war with Pakistan, which could ignite a world war. But heck, who can focus on such trivial things when Arctic ice is at an all time low.
I have to agree with Brendon. It is a clear cherry pick showing only the last few (low) years of sea ice extent.
How can your credibility claim “Arctic Ice Extent Close To A Record High” when it is well below 2 standard deviations from the long term average?
And it’s a tad disingenuous to say “a record high for the date in the DMI database” without mentioning that the database only goes back to 2005, IMO.
So who is more accurate?
Me who stated an irrefutable fact and showed the evidence, or the idiots in the press who keep saying that the ice is disappearing?
The fact you stated is irrefutable, but it is also irrelevant as interannual variability means that observations over a handfull of years are not a reliable indicator of long terms trends.
The fact that the ice extent in June was the lowest in the same six years is equally an irrefutable statement, but it suggests the opposite conclusion. As I said cherry picking is fun isn’t it? It does make you look silly though if you try and make a serious argument with it though.
Who’s more likely to be right?
The experts that consider more than just a few years worth of cherry picked data.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/update-from-julienne/#more-3926
Brendon, your second link is to a graph dated October 3rd, it’s the 10th today, at this time of year a whole week can make a big differance!
We still have another thirty years of data collecting to go before we have an idea of the Arctic dynamics.
IMO the time line 1979 – 2010 is a too short period of time to draw any conclusions.
Why?
1. This period is subject to a period with positive AMO PDO and a once in a 350 years El Ninjo event
2. The entire period is subject to bias media reporting and scientists in support of the AGW scam.
I am very confident that will have an entirely different picture by 2030.
IMO the time line 1979 – 2010 is a too short period of time to draw any conclusions.
Then I don’t understand why you aren’t complaining about Steve’s attempt to make something out of five years’ worth of data. That’s only about 15% of the length of time you’re saying is too short to draw any conclusions.
Something to do with penguins and brain sizes, apparently….
An inconvenient study:
Peer reviewed study says current Arctic sea ice is more extensive than most of the past 9000 years
….Arctic sea ice extent was on a declining trend over the past 9000 years, but recovered beginning sometime over the past 1000 years and has been relatively stable and extensive since.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/23/surprise-peer-reviewed-study-says-current-arctic-sea-ice-is-more-extensive-than-most-of-the-past-9000-years/
And the relevance would be???
You kidding?
You’re seeing what you want to see Brenden?
Ya, um…..ya,ya, you got me. You’re right. How can it be significant that Arctic ice has been increasing the last 1000 years and for 8000 before that there was less than now.
Ya, that means nothing significant.
;o)
We’ve known the climate changes a lot. So what? How does that mean we’re not warming now? Or are you guys back to saying the warming is there but it’s natural? I do wish you’d make up your mind.
Man, there’s some people that just hate it that Arctic ice is growing so fast. And La Nina is just been going a short time. They’re going to be hating the next 2 years.
I think they are feeling insecure and every little movement in the ice is either a feeling of victory or a feeling of defeat. But you’d have to step back and look at the big picture: it was warmer on earth 1000 years ago than now and there is evidence that there was less ice in the Arctic then than now. So what is happening now is nothing unusual. No falling sky here.
What’s to hate about sea ice growing fast? It does this every year around this time.
The worrying part is the longer term trend showing a decline in sea ice.
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20101004_Figure3.png
Obama’s science advisor said that winters are also going to be ice free.
Why is it so bad if ALL the ice melts away in that region? The water too cold for you to swim in?
The rate of recovery is faster than usual in this decade.The long term decline is evident all right.However it is slowing because the last three years is at least a short term rebound ongoing.
It will take years of continued recovery to change that long term rate back in the upward direction.
I’m more thinking about other people and animals than for myself.
The other thing the melt indicates is that the planet is getting warmer which has consequences for more than just the Arctic.
Short term rebound – yey.
Yes I feel lucky to have so much new thin ice forming, although it would be more reassuring the the multi-year ice hadn’t melted to begin with.
Yes it would. What’s going to cause that?
“Obama’s science advisor said that winters are also going to be ice free.”
And that is supposed to be happening soon too according to the bearded guy.
Pure unadulterated stupidity!
“Yes it would. What’s going to cause that?”
The AMO going back to negative trend.That reduces the warm inflow of water into the Arctic.The main reason why the ice cover has been weak on the east side,in the first place.
It was negative in 80’s and 90’s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amo_timeseries_1856-present.svg
Yet the ice extent continued to decline.
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20101004_Figure3.png
… and declined more rapidly when the AMO was positive.
What’s going to be different this time?
Brendon: You write about the AMO: “It was negative in 80’s and 90’s”. Well, not quite. If you look at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.us.data – you’ll see that the last multiyear periods with negative AMO in the summer months were 1981-1986 and 1991-1994. The trend in September Arctic ice cover for the 1980-1986 period was indeed negative, but just barely (almost flat). The trend for the 1990-1994 period however was positive.
“Brendon says:
October 11, 2010 at 6:02 am
We’ve known the climate changes a lot. So what? How does that mean we’re not warming now? Or are you guys back to saying the warming is there but it’s natural? I do wish you’d make up your mind.
———————–
Nope, it’s all Mann made warming.
cos you religious freaks are always right…
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
No link to source or data in the article. WUWT? Don’t you expect visitors?
The ‘near record’ is from a data set that only has 5 years of data when there are other satellite-derived data sets stretching over 34 years. I don’t know if this is disingenuous or daft, but it isn’t sound reporting. It’s a rather silly, blatant cherry-pick.
You’re complaining that there is no source for the data set yet simultaneously you seem to know a lot about this data set. Curious… 😉
I follow the sea ice posts a bit. I hardly know “a lot.”. Providing references is good etiquette and helpful for people with a skeptical disposition. Not everyone would know about the different data sets, and just how truncated this particular one is. And they would be none the wiser for reading this article.
Arctic ice extent was declining, but not recently. Stop obsessing over September, it’s only 1 month of the year.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/10/06/arctic-ice-made-simple-2/
You do realize that you’re telling some to stop obsessing over a post that’s five years old, and that nobody has posted to in 3 years, right?
I’d say that that’s more than a bit obsessive in itself.
Never too late to update.