Death Spiral : Arctic Ice At Record High In The DMI Database

The Danish Meteorological Institute has been tracking Arctic ice extent since 2005. They use the more meaningful 30% concentration standard, and as of today show 2010 as the highest on record for the date.

Ice extent is now more than a million km² (17,000 Manhattans, 318 Rhode Islands, or 10 United Kingdoms) higher than 2007. New ice is forming at a rate faster than one Manhattan every two minutes.

Here is a meaningless apples vs oranges statistic – the type which alarmists love to use.  In order to drive across Manhattan (13 miles) in two minutes, you would have to be traveling  390 miles per hour.

Close up below :

This is solid evidence of several things.

  • Temperatures in the Arctic are very cold. Holdren’s claims of ice free Arctic winters are the thoughts of a scientific incompetent.
  • The late August reduction in ice extent due to wind, had little or no effect on water temperature or the Earth’s radiative energy balance.
  • The 2007 “record minimum” was not a trend, and the ice is recovering.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Arctic, Holdren. Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to Death Spiral : Arctic Ice At Record High In The DMI Database

  1. Dikran Marsupial says:

    Did you report on the record low in the DMI database in June? ;o)

  2. Dikran Marsupial says:

    “The 2007 “record minimum” was not a trend, and the ice is recovering.”

    It is called “regression to the mean”, extreme events (particularly records) tend to be the results of a combination of factors all coming together at the same time, so you tend not to get record years one after the other. The fact that the minimum this year was higher than the 2007 minimum is not evidence of a recovery, it is more than likely just the result of interannual variability. It isn’t much of a recovery anyway given that the minimum was the third lowest according to the NDISC, so lets not get carried away just yet shall we?

      • Dikran Marsupial says:

        Your post said that the record high in the DMI dataset was evidence of a recovery. It isn’t, posting some other line of evidence doesn’t change that. One swallow does not a summer make, that applies to this years sea ice extent just as much as that for 2007. For evience of a recovery you would need to demonstrate an increase in sea ice extent that can’t be explained by interannual variability (i.e. demonstrate a statistically significant trend).

    • sunsettommy says:

      2008,2009 and now 2010 minimums are all higher than the 2007 minimum.

      That describes a 3 year stability to a slow recovery trend.It is still well below the 1979-2009 mean.

      Your over the top language can not dispute the fact that SINCE 2007,the minimums have been significantly higher.

      • Dikran Marsupial says:

        No, “significantly higher” would imply the use of some statistical test had been performed to determine whether the difference was explainable by interannual variability or not (i.e. whether there was evidence that it was higher becuase of some change in arctic sea ice extent or whether it is explainable as the result of chance).

        The 2010 minimum sea ice extent is about what you would expect from the long term trend (see e.g. ), so it isn’t evidence of a recovery.

  3. Sandy Rham says:

    Just under 3 UKs a day, huh?

  4. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    OMG the 2mm sea level rise is going to kill us alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

    Time to watch Water World again LOL

  5. Brendon says:

    24 hours ago you made almost the exact same post … cherry picking is still a hard habit for you to break.

    Why not just chop prior to 2007 off the graphs too? (I bet WUWT has already done this somewhere)

  6. chris y says:

    Steve- “In order to drive across Manhattan (13 miles) in two minutes, you would have to be traveling 390 miles per hour.”

    What happens when this reaches the speed of sound? Oh no, another tipping point…

  7. Njorway says:

    Dikran Marsupial shut up and go to Antarctica

  8. Amino says:

    The 2007 “record minimum” was not a trend, and the ice is recovering.


    I think 2007 was normal. I bet it has happened many time before in Arctic ice. There was less ice in the Arctic 1000 years ago than now. There’s evidence that there’s more ice in the Arctic now than there was in the past 9000 years.

    But global warmers want to convince people what’s happening now is dangerous.

  9. Amino says:

    Heres Hansen data compared to CRU and satellite data:

    See how GISS changes?

    part 1

  10. SMS says:

    When superimposed against the recently experienced super El Nino, the current recovery is remarkable but not unexpected. This quick recovery would suggest that the steady state (non El Nino affected) ice extent for this period has been significantly suppressed by spurious weather and that what we are seeing is a return to a more normal extent that may be greater than the 6 year historical record as shown in your graph.

    This puts the ice recovery back on track.

    • Amino says:

      I think recovery implies something happened that needed to be recovered from. I think 2007 was a normal occurrence that has happened before. We just didn’t have a satellite record to see it. It looks like everything that is happening in climate now is normal and has happened before.

      But at the same time I did understand why you used the word recovery. It’s common for both sides to use it.

      I think one side should stop using it. Because using the word makes it look like something injurious happened that needs to be recovered from.

      • GregO says:

        Yes that arctic ice is “recovering” until it grows without bound and starts covering landmasses – then it will be “encroaching”. I get what you are saying though – how can a big chunk of sea-ice “recover”. Ice melts. Water freezes. Neither “recover”.

      • Amino says:

        Well, the idea of recovery means something happened that harmed Arctic ice and it has to recover from it. I think what happened in 2007 was a normal thing. Just more normal variation. It’s as normal as sunrise happening at a different time throughout the year. The time of sunrise doesn’t start to recover after December 21st.

  11. AndyW says:

    I don’t think the actual value matters that much at the moment, we know it will likely have a close spread come November, I’d say the same if it was too low by the way.


  12. AndyW says:

    Area still low


  13. Pingback: Hottest Year Ever : Both Poles Now Have Record High Ice Recent Extent | Real Science

  14. Philip Finck says:

    About the only way to spin the present arctic ice extent/volume is to ignore pre-1975 historical evidence from many different sources, e.g. ship logs, recent core data, etc. By ignoring pre-1975 data it eliminates historic climate variations. Then you can call post 1975 ice `a decline’, a tipping point and all is lost. Consider pre-1975 and the arguement totally collapses. As a scientist I am continuously amazed by the bias and frankly the stupidity of these climate scientists. It is bizarre, and then the trolls pick it up and quote it as gospel. Can’t they simply look at the matter with some sort of perspective? This isn’t difficult…… in fact when it is explained to any non-scientist, in my experience (and I have a lot), within about 10 minutes their opinion completely changes. That is just the general `Joe and Jane’ on the street.

    What in nature doesn’t have long term cycles (long term varies depending on what your referring to). Rabbit, deer, wolf populations. episodic volcanic eruptions. Earth quakes. Fish populations. Bug infestations. Trees as they move through initial to climax forests, fires, start all over again. Civilizations. Plagues. CLIMATE, TEMPERATURES,ICE EXTENTS, human life from great- grandparent grandparent, parent, baby, and start at the other end at worm bait.

    The only long term steady state in anything is an artificial line drawn on a long term cycle. This is the entire problem with the AGW theory…….. the lack of understanding or refusal to accept the fact that things cyle on periods of seasons, years, decades, centuries, milleniums, Millions yrs, eras, geological periods, star birth and death………….
    The world as we know it didn’t start in 1850, 0r 1900, or in the average of 1900 – 1960, or in 1975, or in 2000 to present…… ugh.
    It is dumb, dumb, more dumb, less dumb and just plain studid.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s