National Ice Center Shows 40% More Ice Than 2007

NOAA’s National Ice Center shows that there is a lot more ice now than the 2007 minimum.

Turquoise shows ice present in 2012 that was not present in September 2007. Red shows the opposite. As you can see, 40% of the current ice covered area would have to disappear to match the 2007 minimum.

cursnow_alaska.gif (512×512)

ims2007262_alaska.gif (512×512)

The Canadian Government also reports a lot more ice than what satellite microwave sensors are reporting. Record minimum claims? Complete BS, from the usual suspects..

CMMBCTCA.gif (2200×1700)

About stevengoddard

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

49 Responses to National Ice Center Shows 40% More Ice Than 2007

  1. Andy says:

    I think the question here should be why the difference rather than one is wrong and one is right.

    As far as I can tell it looks like they use MASIE which shows similar

    this also uses microwave sat analysis as well as other reports, so it is no just that the sats are wrong or “BS” as mentioned above. Perhaps Julienne will have an answer if you get in touch or she reads here.


  2. TimoH says:

    National Ice Center also shows todays daily extent 7.26 and about same day in 2007 was 6.81.

    Also Weekly extent is above 2007

    So there is really something wrong with this extent graph

    • TimoH says:

      It makes me wonder, if there is adjustment that forces measurements downward.

      • Andy says:

        Why would there be?

        If you look here,

        at all the graphs they tend to show it a lot lower, so the questions is rather why is this one so high????


      • Me says:

        So I guess that means you support WUWT about the BESTesesesss reports then?

      • Me says:

        And everything there that is against AGW? right Andy??????

      • Me says:

        Yeah Andy, your hypocrisy here is deafening. Cheers! 😆

      • TimoH says:

        “at all the graphs they tend to show it a lot lower, so the questions is rather why is this one so high????”

        No thats not the queston, there is probably different consentration threshold, but I assumed that you do comparison between 2007 and 2012 daily sea ice extents.

        But what is the real queston

        There is difference between 15. and today pictures, not pictures themself, but what are they saying.

        Todays catch from National Ice Data Center

        “Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for August 13, 2012 was 5.09 million square kilometers (1.97 million square miles), 483,000 square kilometers (186,000 square miles) below the same day in 2007.”

        15. day catch

        “Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for August 13, 2012 was 4.90 million square kilometers (1.9 million square miles), 450,000 square kilometers (173,745 square miles) below the same day in 2007. ”

        So 2012 extent data did grow some 200 000 sqkm, but at the same time difference between 2007 and 2012 also grow some 33 000 sqkm.
        There is no any other explanation for that, they have to adjust 2007 upwards some 233 000 sqkm between 15. and today.

        NIDC, we catchyou again and again and again…

      • Peter Ellis says:

        “( Note: The sea ice extent originally published on August 14, 2012 was the actual one-day value for August 13. We normally report the five-day trailing mean, so to be consistent we have updated the post with these numbers instead of the one-day value. )”

        Trailing mean is higher than the one-day value because we are in the melt season, and ice is decreasing, so the one-day value for Aug 13th is lower than the average of Aug 9/10/11/12/13th.

        The difference is larger for 2007 than for 2012, because 2012 is melting faster than 2007.

      • TimoH says:

        Peter, sorry I didnt know that in 2007 there was huge expanding between 9. and 13. day, opposite 2012 same time period extremely rapid melting.

  3. Peter Ellis says:

    Hi Steve,

    This appears to use the IMS product. As I’ve said before, this uses visible wavelengths and is much more sensitive to thin, low concentration ice. As such, the IMS values tend to show much more of a fall during August / early September than other sources, as the thin fringes give way.

    You’re right to say that today’s values are ~40% above the 2007 minimum for this source. However it’s misleading to omit the fact that it’s only ~10% or so above the matching date in 2007. That is, going by this source 2007 lost ~1/3 of its remaining ice extent in the last month of the melt season – as did 2008 and 2011, so it’s nothing unusual for this data set.

    Comparing the IMS data set to the microwave data sets, the conclusion is that current extent is either slightly below or slightly above 2007, depending whether you look at microwave or visible wavelengths. The difference is accounted for by large fields of extremely sparse, thin ice, which is not picked up well on microwaves. You can also see this clearly on the Aqua/Terra images from MODIS.

    • Peter Ellis says:

      “uses predominantly visible wavelengths”, I should say. They do cross-check with microwaves, but the visible data is much higher resolution, so I don’t know how that cross-checking plays out in practice.

  4. Ron C. says:

    If I look at the August ice extent since 2006,it seems that 2007 dipped about this time in the month. Also there seems not much additional loss in Sept.…..xtent.html

  5. Ron C. says:

    If I look at the August ice extent since 2006,it seems that 2007 dipped about this time in the month. Also there seems not much additional loss in Sept.…..xtent.html
    Sorry if the link doesn’t work.

  6. Andy says:

    Me rambled “Yeah Andy, your hypocrisy here is deafening. Cheers! ”

    Considering I did not even answer your last two statements of the 3 you spammed the site with how can I be hypocritical? Try and sober up before you next post.


  7. Andy says:

    TimoH said

    “No thats not the queston, there is probably different consentration threshold”

    Is there though? They tend to use 30 or 15%. The graphs and maps showing less ice than National Ice Centre use 15% and so for National Ice Centre to show more woud mean they use even less than 15%, which I doubt.

    TimoH also said

    “NIDC, we catchyou again and again and again…”

    The problem is multiple sources are showing it to be same as NSIDC, so this sentence just shows your paranoia. It boils down to the fact that because you do not like the results you believe it’s all phoney. If they were showing it was gaining ice then you would not doubt it for a second I bet, indeed you are probably more than happy with results for the Antarctic and don’t question them at all. This shows you are sifting the data to show what you want, not just sifting it equally, ie you set off with an inbuilt bias. And that’s bad science on your part.


  8. TimoH says:

    “Is there though? They tend to use 30 or 15%. The graphs and maps showing less ice than National Ice Centre use 15% and so for National Ice Centre to show more woud mean they use even less than 15%, which I doubt.”

    So lets assume both are 15%, so why there is huge difference between two datasets from same source, for 2012 other NICD set is 5.09 miljon sqkm and other for same 13. day is 7.44
    2007 there was 5.3 or 7.1

    Five day averaging dont change result.

    • There is nothing happening in the Arctic. Get a grip.

    • Eric Webb says:

      Jak, wow, typical pro AGW talking points site, the AGWers are about to get a big slap in the face this winter. A major pattern flip is coming because of the central based el nino after 2-3 years of la nina, the eastern half of the US will become frigid. “it is going to be tough to stay cool.” Quite the contrary, going to be tough to stay warm when you have failed green energy policies hanging over our heads, shutdowns of coal fired powered plants, and billions in government subsidies using taxpayer money. Do you realize that the arctic sea ice has declined because of the warm AMO? Nope, because you are incompetent and ignorant just like most AGWers.

      • jak says:

        Acoording to the most recent research, 70% of the decline in Arctic Sea Ice cover is attrituable to AGW, which leaves 30% due to natural causes. Of these, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (which was discovered by Michael Mann) is by far the most important.

    • Eric Webb says:

      Jak, AGW doesn’t exist, and I seriously doubt Mann discovered it. Here’s a good question for you, how can a trace gas necessary for life and that only makes up .04% of the atmosphere, of which humans only contribute 5% of (according to US Department of Energy) and the atmosphere which has 1000x LESS the energy capacity of the ocean have a large impact on climate when weighed against other major climate factors like precession, sunspot cycles, PDO, AMO, and volcanic activity? Jak you are full of it and just another AGW troll.

      • jak says:


        Mann discovered AMO, not AGW (which exists).

      • Eric Webb says:

        No he didn’t even Mann himself claims he didn’t discover it, just like Al Gore claiming he discovered internet, however you failed to answer my question above.

      • Eric Webb says:

        Jak, I’m going to ask you this question again: “How can a trace gas necessary for life that only makes up .04% of the atmosphere, of which humans contribute only 5% of (according to US Department of Energy) and the atmosphere which has 1000x LESS the energy capacity of the ocean have a large impact on climate when weighed against other major climate factors like precession, sunspot cycles, PDO, AMO, and volcanic activity?

      • Whatever says:

        Eric, Are you arguing that CO2 in NOT a greenhouse gas? This trace gas accounts for approximately 15% of the total greenhouse effect — punches way beyond its weight so to speak. Thus the concern of scientists about rising levels of this little powerhouse. But to answer your question in a different way; How can a trace gas be responsible for all the forests, crops and plankton throughout all the lands and oceans?

    • Eric Webb says:

      Sorry, Jak, but Wikipedia is not an accurate source of information, you are going to have to do better than that. The claims they make have been heavily refuted by actual scientists and many skeptics alike, and are just typical AGW talking points. You need to answer the question specifically, not cite BS from unreliable sources of information.

  9. jak says:


    Which claims made in that Wikipedia article have been refuted by “actual scientists”?

    • actual scientists, as opposed to patent clerks.

    • rw says:

      How about the claim implicit in the first figure that the decline in temperature between 1940 and 1980 was about 0.1 deg C? In fact, it seems to have been about 0.6, based on analyses by Lamb, Mitchell, Jr., Willett and others (all genu-wine scientists).

  10. Eric Webb says:

    First of all, in the article they show a graph of GISS global temperatures, that has been severely manipulated by Hansen and NASA. The article also makes the claim that greenhouse gases, specifically CO2 are the main reason for the 20th century warming, that if false because when you look at the satellite era temperatures provided by UAH and compare it to CO2 concentrations, there is no correlation, Co2 is accelerating, while temperatures are leveling off. They also claim that 2005 and 2010 are tied for the warmest on record, that’s false because they base that off of the heavily manipulated GISS. They also claim that fossil fuel combustion has caused about 75% of the increase in CO2, however, the US Department of Energy disagrees and says that humans contribute only 5% of annual CO2 the other 95% is natural. They also claim that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid 20th century is “with high probability, attributable to human induced changes in greenhouse gas concentrations.” What? Did they forget that Co2 only makes up .04% of the atmosphere which has 1000x less energy capacity as the oceans, and we only contribute 5% of that .04%, the US an even smaller amount of that 5% of .04%. “The arctic is supposed to be largely ice-free by 2037.” Going to be very hard to that when sunspot cycles are down and the AMO is cold. Another bogus claim they made was “Dissolved CO2 increase ocean acidity.” No it doesn’t the oceans are BASIC, they have a PH above 7, so a lowering PH makes it more NEUTRAL, not more acidic. Seriously you have no idea what you are talking about, and the claims and ideology you support are baseless.

  11. jak says:

    Eric, you would be better addressing your concerns to “all of the national scientific academies of the developed world” than to me.

    While you’re at it, you might also like to explain the whole scam to the CEOs of all of the Big 5 Oil companies. They all seem to accept the science.

    Good luck.

    Given the degree of scientific illiteracy in the above, you are going to need it.

    Some points to ponder.

    The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is 100 years. So if humans add 5% per year, then over 100 years, that makes, how much?

    If a substance is basic, and it becomes more neutral, is its acidity increasing, or decreasing?

    There is no dataset which shows a lack of correlation for CO2 and temperature over a 30 year period.

    • Eric Webb says:

      What “scam” of the 5 big oil companies are you talking about? The only scam is when people like Mann and Hansen use fudged data, and billions are spent on a simple scientific hypothesis. Scientific consensus does not validate the AGW hypothesis.Yes, there is a dataset that shows a lack of correlation with C02 and global temperatures, GISS doesn’t count as accurate, just look at UAH temperatures, they have not warmed since 1998, and CO2 has accelerated. What you don’t seem to understand how minute the effect of CO2 has on climate, it makes up .04% of the atmosphere and the US Department of Energy says we contribute 5% of that and the US contributes a portion of that, and when weighed against other climate factors, CO2 is not a significant factor in climate. You are an idiot.

  12. jak says:


    The whole AGW scam of course. All of the oil companies accept that man-made CO2 is causing global warming. How they are making money out of this scam is for you guys to explain…

    Seems there’s quite a lot to explain…

    Next, here is a graph of CO2 vs temperature averaged against all the main temperature datasets:

    Looks like a tight fit.

    Next, as I stipulated above, you need to look at a 30 year period to get a basis for discussing temperature trends as relates to climate. Otherwise you get too much random noise.

    So do you want to talk about the temperature change from 1968 to 1998? Or do you have the figures from 1998 to 2028?

    Or, maybe, just maybe, you picked 1998 because it was a massive El Nino year?

    And increasing amounts of CO2 cause increases in the temperature just because they do. This was worked out theoretically in 1824, and first quantified in 1896.

    For what it’s worth, water vapour is a much bigger cause of the greenhouse effect; and methane, which is measured in parts per billion, is a much stronger greenhouse gas.

    • Eric Webb says:

      You still have not answered my question about CO2, go and look at the UAH temps and CO2 concentration, there is no correlation. Please explain HOW CO2 has a large effect on climate weighed against all of the other natural forcing and variation.

  13. Ron C. says:

    “Differences between the NIC ice chart sea ice record and the passive microwave sea ice record are highly significant despite the fact that the NIC charts are semi-dependent on the passive microwave data, and it is worth noting these differences. . . We find a baseline difference in integrated ice concentration coverage north of 45N of 3.85% ± 0.73% during November to May (ice chart concentrations are larger). In summer, the difference between the two sources of data rises to a maximum of 23% peaking in early August, equivalent to ice coverage the size of Greenland.”

    Right now, the NIC charts for August show 2012 and 2007 about the same, with a dip for 2007 starting this time of the month. And the extent shown is higher than NSIDC shows, consistent with the above finding.

  14. Ron C. says:

    The NASA extent reports are even more questionable regarding Canadian ice extent.

    More than 1380 regional Canadian weekly sea-ice charts for four Canadian regions and 839 hemispheric U.S. weekly sea-ice charts from 1979 to 1996 are compared with passive microwave sea-ice concentration estimates using the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Team algorithm. Compared with the Canadian regional ice charts, the NASA Team algorithm underestimates the total ice-covered area by 20.4% to 33.5% during ice melt in the summer and by 7.6% to 43.5% during ice growth in the late fall.

  15. illyax says:

    Steven, you are comparing August 18 this year to 2007 minimum, September 17th.

    Also, the cut in NSIDC concentration is 15 %. NOAA has it 0-15 %. That makes a difference.

    • Why are you telling me something which I said three times in the first two paragraphs?

      • illyax says:

        Because I am telling you something that you didn’t say in either of the paragraphs.

        And you didn’t say anything three times in your “three times in the first two paragraphs”.

        Empty talk from your part so far, my friend.

        Maybe you care to elaborate?

  16. HL Mencken says:

    A very good explanation for why “all the big oil companies support the idea of AGW” is that
    not to do so incurs the wrath of Big Environment. That group in concert has successfully “mau-maued”, or “extorted” in plain speak, petroleum company CEO’s into forking over substantial sums of cash to serve their sometimes nefarious agendas, while stintingly funding the skeptics. All in all, those who support the AGW theory have consistently enjoyed more than a 15-fold advantage at the funding trough because of the greater PR advantage held by the eco
    establishment. Take it for what it is.
    HL Mencken

    • Jason Calley says:

      Big oil can make more profit once CO2 is demonized. If people go to more efficient use of fossil fuel, the companies can charge more per unit; after all, if the average person already allocates x dollars a month to fuel, the auto which uses half as much fuel is still affordable when the cost per unit doubles. Even more importantly, once a CO2 sequestration scheme is implemented, the Big Oil companies will be paid a sequestration fee for all the CO2 they inject into their previously pumped out wells. They get extra CO2 money (for sequestration) and also get the last dregs of oil forced from the strata by the pressurization. Otherwise they would have to spend their own money to get the hard to pump remainders of oil.

      Perhaps I have just been watching how things play out for too long, but anyone who thinks that petroleum profits will be cut by governmental intervention into CO2 creation and usage, does not understand how the governmental/corporate partnership works. Big Oil fighting to stop CAGW legislation? Ha! More like Big Oil screaming, “Don’t throw me in that briar patch!”

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