Arctic Ice Continues At Shockingly Low Levels

You can see why some “scientists” at NASA and NOAA want to re-engineer the world’s economy over a possibly missing ice cube.


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Arctic Ice Continues At Shockingly Low Levels

  1. Baa Humbug says:

    In the context of lots of Australian Flood stories…

    “We’re rooned said Hanrahan”

  2. Tony Duncan says:

    Steve you forgot to post this graph.

    • truthsword says:

      Are you insinuating that is a shockling low level? Heh

    • Yes, you can see how much extent has changed in the DMI graph, being right where it always is.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      I just posted a graph that includes more information and is at a different scale from Steve’s. Since most people here think I am usually insinuating, you are free to do so.

      • Ever look at those 10,000X electron microscope pictures of scary little mites?

      • Tony Duncan says:


        I don’t see an average of around 1-2 million KM2 less than the ’79-2000 average as being microscopic. It looks like this years is dancing with the lowest ice extent on record.

      • BioBob says:

        Hey Tony, have you ever figured out the differential in the ice extents reported by the various organizations reporting that same number ?

        Why is there such a large difference if they are all supposedly measuring the same thing ?

      • Tony Duncan says:
        January 13, 2011 at 6:45 pm

        I don’t see an average of around 1-2 million KM2 less than the ’79-2000 average as being microscopic.

        Do you see it as being normal? Do you see it as more than there was 1000 years ago? 2000 years ago? 3000?

        Do you know? It’s doubtful that you do. You think you’re being clever though.

      • Tony Duncan says:


        I don’t know, I have never given any pretense of being an expert in any of these fields, and of course you think I am being clever when I just post a perspective that gives more information than Steve’s post

    • Robb says:


      In regard to your “I don’t see an average of around 1-2 million KM2 less than the ’79-2000 average as being microscopic.”

      According to NSIDC’s most recent Sea Ice News…

      “Arctic sea ice extent averaged over December 2010 was 12.00 million square kilometers (4.63 million square miles). This is the lowest December ice extent recorded in satellite observations from 1979 to 2010, 270,000 square kilometers (104,000 square miles) below the previous record low of 12.27 million square kilometers (4.74 million square miles) set in 2006 and 1.35 million square kilometers (521,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average.”

      Sounds scary doesn’t it?

      Let’s look again…

      Dec ice extent = 12 Mkm^2
      1979-2000 avg = 13.35 Mkm^2 (12Mkm^2 + 1.35 Mkm^2 difference)
      This equates to a 10.11% difference

      This is a football field”

      Let’s just say those little blue rectangles are puddles of water. Would call this field alarmingly wet? Of course not.

      This is the equivalent, as a percentage of area, of the “unprecedented” melting. While it might not be microscopic, it’s by no means significant either.

      Seems we might be back to that perspective thing we last talked about.

      • Robb says:

        I tried to put the image inline and it didn’t work out…

        Click here for the football field image.

      • Tony Duncan says:


        I think it is quite possible for a 10% difference to be significant. Whether it is or not I can’t say. I can certainly say it is not microscopic. Steve and others have been saying there is a rebound in arctic ice and climate scientists are saying that it is not recovering. The next few years should see if there is a significant increase in arctic ice and bear out Steve’s view.

      • Robb says:

        I figured you’d say that. So the next question I must ask is a 10% difference from what? 10% lower thank normal? 10% lower than recorded highs? As always perspective is the key.

        The below link is to a chart of Arctic conditions spanning the terrestrial & satellite time frames. Do you notice anything? (I tried to make it obvious.)
        Arctic Conditions 1900-2000

        Ever think you’re only seeing half the picture?

        reference: Polyakov, I.V., V.A. Alexeev, G.I. Belchansky, I. Dmitrenko, V.V. Ivanov, S. Kirillov, A. Korablev, M. Steele, L. Timokhov, I. Yashayev (2008), Arctic Ocean freshwater changes over the past 100 years and their causes, Journal of Climate, 21(2), 364-384.

  3. slimething says:

    Yes it’s boiling hot in the Arctic this time of the year 🙂

  4. Layne Blanchard says:

    It’s very telling to look at the shot of the entire arctic with trend lines…. then it becomes obvious the tiny difference between now and the average. We’ve got snow in 49 states. How does that compare to the average?

  5. Pingback: Oh My! 2010 tied for ‘hottest’ year?! Relax, it is ‘purely a political statement’ |

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 )

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