Areas of green indicate more ice than 2007. Areas of red mean less ice than 2007.
The ice free Arctic has gained 22,767 Manhattans of ice since the same date in 2007, and 38,156 Manhattans since the minimum one month ago. A new Manhattan of ice has been forming every 68 seconds since September 19. Daily ice extent has averaged 338,043 km² (5,729 Manhattans) higher in 2010 than 2007.
There are currently 119,743 Manhattans of ice in John Holdren’s ice free Arctic.
Recovering as expected and still no where near the 1979-2000 average.
How does it compare to the average in the 1920’s + 30’s?
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2010/08/10/greenland-petermann-iceberg.html so what happened to the killer piece of ice that came loose, they went all quiet about it, did it reattach LOL
You asked that last time didn’t you? Do you remember the answer?
No one knows. We have only studied it since 1979. We are only seeing that we have gain for the last 8% of our viewing time
You do love ignoring the Antartcic don’t you… LOL
You might notice that this thread is about the Artic ice. 😉
You’re right. Why would they look at the big picture. They just want everyone to focus an anything that could be construed as alarming. The big picture? Don’t pay attention to the natural variation. 😉
If you want to see people who aren’t looking at the big picture, search for bloggers who post about what the Arctic ice extent happens to look like this week while ignoring the overall trend.
It shouldn’t be too hard.
1979 – 2000 is a cherry picked time frame.
What time frame would you choose as a baseline and where can we find that data?
I think the consistency is the issue/problem. AR1 (or FAR) included data from 1974; however this shows 1979 ice levels to be exceptionally high. The first 5 years were dropped from all the other assessment reports, a running 20 (or 25) year average would eventually omit unusually high 1979 and reveal a trend.
It has been done already.
There is also a link to download AR1 from the IPCC.
Last 9000 years sounds better:
The paper also finds that 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.
OK. So in the last 9,000 years it was declining and then relatively stable for the past 1,000 years.
Now it’s declining again and at an accelerating rate.
You may not have gone back to the other thread to see this:
I’m waiting for the answers to these questions:
When you start asking relevant ones, I’ll start answering.
It’s ok to have readers see you avoid the questions.
I won’t be answering stupid irrelevant questions. If you wish to focus more on the topic then I’ll gladly join in.
There are some questions about NSIDC graphs:
Yes. On the internet there are quite a few unanswered questions. Good luck!!
I know, what the graphs show means nothing. Nothing to see here folks. Move along. Data doesn’t matter. Global warming is real.
When you have the flu, do you go from zero to hero in a day? No, recovery takes time.
There are two big criteria that CAGW believers put on the ice recovery that are just absurd. The first is what you have done – expecting the ice to go back to long-term averages in a just a few years. I don’t see why this is expected…for instance, since the ice took a decade to lose so much material, does that mean it wasn’t a decline? I can’t expect the ice to recover any faster than it declined. The second mistake is that they want to see the long-term trendline (either a line or polynomial) go positive. This is even worse than the first. Do know how many years of record high minima Arctic sea ice area in a row, starting with 2011, it would take to see the trendline go positive? I do – 12 years. So if we set record high values (5507713 km^2) every year, will the warmers change their mind in 2022?
I forgot to include my summary…
I don’t know what the chances are for an Arctic recovery…maybe not so good. But what I do know is that the bizarre mathematical stipulations some warmists put on the ice to have it “recover” means that it will take years or even decades for it to recover in their eyes even if it clearly recovers to everyone else.
It really was a slow start to the melt season on 2010.
Why does the average matter anyway? Do we expect every day on earth to be the same and within average?
It’s a good way to see if the ice is continually under, over, or around the same amount year by year.
Lately it’s been well under.
oooo maybe it’s just an orbital variations causing it all, hey we don’t have enough research hey (meaning give us more money)
“Consider our current projection on a CO2 low emissions scenario and the comparison is startling. The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change considers a 2 degree C temperature rise, resulting in a 0.18 to 0.38 meter sea level rise to be a best case scenario, and one increasingly unlikely given little attempt to curb the planet’s appetite for carbon. This estimate on sea level rise we know is low, since it excludes ice sheet flow due to the lack of data in published literature.
If the last interglacial is any indicator of what 2 degrees C gets us, we could be in for much higher seas than we ever imagined.”
Interesting posts and comments,
1) Picking an average that supports your argument based on specific years is not a realistic option. IN EITHER CASE. What is the average over the period of recorded ice coverage? Comparing the coverage to that number would give a realistic comparison to average ice coverage. The average is a number that should be used for comparison purposes only, the actual ice coverage depends on some many other factors that we DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT or even in some case or even most cases we might not even know that we don’t know it an effecting factor.
2) The little pissing matches that go back and forth about who is correct about an average that has no real meaning to the larger picture is childish , non productive , and really really boring.
The facts about AGW are generally as follows
1) The climate is changing, has always changed and will always change .
2) The question of if humans are responsible for the period of roughl;y 1945 through today is still open for debate in spite of the screaming histrionics and name calling on both sides of the argument.
SCIENCE DOES NOT CARE ABOUT WHO HAS THE BIGGER CONSENSUS. Science is concerned about data and data interpretations.
Compose a theory
Plan a test(experiment) to evaluate your theories
Examine your data
Reevaluate your theories based on your test results
Plan another test
Examine your data.
Rinse and repeat until your test data matches your theory
Publish your theory and prepare to discuss it with your peers and all others who have an interest.
Sound familiar folks it should.
The conduct of the persoanl and personalities surrounding AGW has been reprehensible for scientists. The AGW theory and the data collection systems if fully validated are/were nobel quality stuff. The political and social plans of peopleand governments connected to it have ensured that it will go down in infamy even if it is correct.
Why were not Mann ,Hansen et al not standing on top of the biggest mountain they could find telling the world this is what I did, this is how I did it, and this is what I think it means. Come and prove me wrong. If they had done that instead of trying to control the message, the messengers and the science, I expect that we would be much further ahead in actually finding out what is going on… you know the science part of science. Instead we are mired in a swamp of invictive, name calling, and persecution.
Perhaps actually finding out what is going on might just be considered a good thing for all concerned
Give me a break. We’ve been subject to non-stop “We’re all gonna fry!!!” scare-mongering for the last decade (despite the complete absence of the predicted temperature rises, storms and disasters).
Steve’s cutting sarcasm is like a breath of fresh air – and a welcome counter to the never-ending doom-mongering, spin and lies from the government funded green activists. Keep it up Steve!
The overall trend in arctic ice over the last 30 years the warmist say continues down and this is how we should look at it however this is not how they look at global temperatures where we have seen no increase for the last decade or so , there they say we must look at the underlying trend which is still up. I think that the underlying trend in the arctic ice minimum is still up and that the underlying trend in global temperatures is down, we are heading towards the next ice age after all.
Manhattans – a good new unit of measure! I wonder if we can get it to catch on?
I never understood why global average temp. means anything, anymore than global average height or income or education. Nobody ever points out that the global average temp can increase by an increase in the minimum temps, without any increase at all in the maximum temps. How much of the, so-called, increases come from an increase in nighttime temps rather than daytime?
Your cherry picking looks pretty dumb now with 2010 on par with the record low 2007.
Are you really as dim as you pretend?