Ice Free Arctic : 23 Percent Gain Since 2007

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.


About stevengoddard

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

34 Responses to Ice Free Arctic : 23 Percent Gain Since 2007

  1. Brendon says:

    Recovering as expected and still no where near the 1979-2000 average.

  2. AndyW says:

    It really was a slow start to the melt season on 2010.


  3. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    Why does the average matter anyway? Do we expect every day on earth to be the same and within average?

    • Brendon says:

      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.

  4. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    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.”

  5. Glen Shevlin says:

    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

    • Chilli says:

      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!

  6. don penman says:

    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.

  7. PhilJourdan says:

    Manhattans – a good new unit of measure! I wonder if we can get it to catch on?

  8. gofer says:

    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?

  9. Brendon says:

    Your cherry picking looks pretty dumb now with 2010 on par with the record low 2007.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s