Earth Gains A Record Amount Of Sea Ice In 2013

Earth has gained 19,000 Manhattans of sea ice since this date last year, the largest increase on record. There is more sea ice now than there was on this date in 2002.

ScreenHunter_561 Sep. 14 06.01

timeseries.global.anom.1979-2008

h/t to Marc Morano

About stevengoddard

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

229 Responses to Earth Gains A Record Amount Of Sea Ice In 2013

  1. jfreed27 says:

    Hogwash! A classic example of cherry picking. A nice visual can be found here:

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/09/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-delusions

    We have lost over all a large fraction of Arctic ice, even ancient ice. Rose’s “recovery” is small and temporary in comparison and doesn’t bring us anywhere close to where it was even a few decades ago.

    And this is also ancient ice lost that had been there for millions of years. It might take that long to accumulate that again. Long after the deniers are dead and buried.

    I cannot imagine the moral depravity of someone like Rose who knowingly distracts and delays. Millions will die – to win an argument? to make a lousy buck? to go all smoochy with other political idealogues?

    But, then Stalin too is a mystery to me.

    • ROFLMAO – Arctic sea ice never lasts more than about 10 years. It all gets flushed by winds out into the North Atlantic.

      You might want to learn some basic information about the topic before you comment.

    • Andy Oz says:

      “Millions will die”??!!
      From what? Even the UN IPCC have admitted the climate alarmists models are massively wrong. Millions of alarmist reputations are dying as we speak. Time to find a new religion.

  2. Joe Bama says:

    All I know is that summer 2013 in the NE was the coolest summer in a long time, and very rainy too. We had not one but two tropical storms blow through here in the last three years, both times direct hits which is totally batsh!t for this area! Normally storms like that stay off the coast of NJ. I think global warming needs to be changed to Global Weirdness.

  3. Chimel says:

    1) The whole graph is irrelevant, ice lows are NOT taken on September 9 of each year, but around the end of the month, because ice melting goes on during that month. You can see it from the 2012 figure, which does not look anything like the record low it was. You need to take the lowest point for each year, taking a specific date such as Sept 9 is guaranteed to make your data totally useless 99.9999% of times.
    2) The graph shows only the seasonal ice. If you look at the graph, every year there is a high record ice, it is systematically followed by a total ice meltdown that takes it into the negative red. There are only 4 exceptions in that graph, but still, the ice cover for the second year is lower than the first year. That’s OK, because it’s the very definition of seasonal ice: Ice that totally melts down during the next summer. But your own graph shows that it’s exactly what’s happening, and it even goes into the red, meaning it systematically melts down some of the older ice accumulated over the past years, not just the seasonal ice.
    3) I don’t know if you’ve ever taken an ice cube in your soda, but these things are not two-dimensional, so the ice surface, while useful for shipping routes, is not as helpful for climate studies as the ice volume. The decline of Arctic ice volume over the decades is even more important than the decline of ice surface: http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/p/arctic-sea-ice-extent-and-volume.html
    4) A year does not climate make. Please do not consider anything smaller than a decade’s average, and then only when compared to several other decade averages.

    • Arctic ice area reached the minimum on September 9, but thanks for the mindless rant.

    • rho1953 says:

      The truth is that earths climate cannot be measured even in decades. Ten years of data on a planet with a lifespan in the billions is almost zero. Earths climate has to be quantified over centuries or even thousands of years. Fluctuation over a period of fifty years are meaningless. There are probably millions of variables in the climate model. We cannot possibly have a handle on it. That’s why all this is so ludicrous.

      • Chimel says:

        I agree that a decade is meaningless, that’s why I said it should be compared with several decades, but 50 years is not meaningless in the case of anthropogenic warming, especially if it fits in a whole century of the same trend.

        Climate models are the best tools we have at this stage to plan ahead. They are far from perfect, but keep improving as new data and knowledge is added. I don’t think it’s any more ludicrous than a 5-day weather forecast or a 5-year business plan. Heck, there are millions of variables growing a single plant of maize, yet agrobiologists modeled a simple enough process for us to grow a successful crop of millions of plants.

        • rho1953 says:

          No, the climate is far too complex to model. That requires a human with some preconceived ideas to build a model and what has happened is that they skewed the model to make sure warming was the result. This is not in doubt. The Anglican emails show that beyond doubt. They then destroyed the original data so that there was no possibility of checking. That is fraud, and science shouldn’t be allowing it to happen. Nothing is sacred or beyond challenge in real science, and that is where are now. It is considered heresy to even doubt what it is clearly in doubt now.

  4. Kate says:

    I like what Charles krauthamer said about the global warming scientists. He said The very idea of science is to be open to any possible conclusion- and they global warming “scientists” only seem to be open to the conclusion that the earth is heating.

  5. Knowledge says:

    Here’s another fun picture from the same source as your graph.

    The gray curve is the 30-year average. The blue curve is the two-year actual. The red curve indicates net change from the average to the current.

    Climate vs. weather is long term vs. short term. Here’s another graph showing the long-term “anomaly” of the exact same data set which you use to promote your argument.

  6. TonyK says:

    I remember a few years ago when they found some WWII plane in a glacier on Greenland, they had to bore a hole almost 250 ft down just to get to it. I guess it was just magic that an additional 250 ft of ice was added to a glacier in just over 50 years…. And it all occurred during this era of global warming.

  7. Mike Lowry says:

    Funny thing about ” Climate Change ” Fanatics, they almost all have no clue about Scientific Method. Nor do they possess an open mind to evaluate data, or the ability to see errors in the assumptions read ( guesses)many of of the climate models have.
    Interestingly, back in the 1920’s, than the 1950’s, global warming was in vogue. Many scientists jumped on the global warming binge, blaming the Industrial revolution. They too were run out of dodge.
    Climate change happens to be normal. You cannot extrapolate climate change, and assign blame on Hyman kind. They ignore that Mt Pinotuba injected in the stratosphere more metric tons of CFC’S IN 1 minute,than human kind have produced.

  8. Incredible says:

    If anyone bothers to read the graph, one may pause to wonder about the year 1979 as the maximum. It’s entirely possible, especially in the light of a massive distortion campaign, that sea ice levels were in fact lower earlier in that decade since 40 years is hardly enough time for meaningful patterns to be seen.

    • Chimel says:

      That was stevengoddard’s choice. The data goes as far down as 1870 from the same source:
      http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/timeseries.1870-2008

      • Geez, people like Chimel are as dumb as dog shit. The cited data is generated by a computer “model” that assumes that catastrophic global warming theory is true. Then the morons come along and point to the data as proof that catastrophic global warming theory is true. Why is there such a vast ignorance of science in the 21st century? Our education systems have not served us well.

        • Chimel says:

          “Historical timeseries of annual and seasonal Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent are available below for the period 1870-2008.”
          HISTORICAL is the keyword here for this dataset, this is no climate model result.
          HYSTERICAL is the keyword that applies to your reaction.
          If you look closely at the chart, you’ll notice that this year will be the 6th or 7th lowest sea ice cover since 1979, once we know for sure what’s the lowest for September. Maybe it’s more easily visible on this chart, also from the same source:

          Calling people morons and dumb only reflect on yourself.

        • You’re a moron. There are no records of sea ice extent earlier than the beginning of the satellite era. But you don’t know this because you’re a moron.

        • rho1953 says:

          There are detailed records and charts compiled by seagoing vessels as far back as commerce via the sea has been going on. Are we supposed to disavow anything before the era of satellites?

        • Robertv says:

          And Polar Bears love it . Just look at their growing numbers.

        • Robertv says:

          HISTORICAL

        • rho1953 says:

          Not only does it assume it, the model was adjusted to ensure that warming would show. They assumed warming, then they manipulated the parameters to ensure warming. And they destroyed the original input data so that it could never be checked. This is all in the Anglican emails that the left doesn’t want to discuss.

        • X says:

          “… These data are a compilation of data from several sources integrated into a single gridded product by John Walsh and Bill Chapman, University of Illinois. The source of data for each grid cell is included within a separate file.
          These sources of data have changed over the years from observationally derived charts to satellite data. Gaps within observed data are filled with climatology or other
          numerically derived data.
          Please note that much of the pre-1953 data is either climatology or interpolated data and the user is cautioned to use this data with care….”

          http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/arctic.historical.seaice.doc.txt

  9. It was sunny and hot 10 days ago. Today it was rainy and cool! OH MY HEAVENS!!! It’s MAJOR CLIMATE CHANGE!!! It was much colder in February than it was in July. This HAS to be the fault of the cows at the feed-lot. And it PROVES Al Gore’s point, that capitalism and Aerosol Cheese are killing the planet.

    And if it is settled science, why did you have to cook the numbers, and lie about it when you got caught red-handed.

    No, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus, and Al Gore is not the SMARTEST man in the room, he’s just the guy with the FATTEST head(and wallet, by the way) in this climate fraud.

    The difference between Al Gore and a bag of dog crap? The bag.

  10. Ana says:

    Oh no, here we go. On this news I am willing to bet the left will now say the impending ice age they predicted in the 80s is about to arrive.

  11. The last 10 years have been the hottest on record!
    97% of the world’s greatest scientists believe in what I’m typing to you right now.
    The 1979-2013 Arctic trend is down.*

    Anything else left?

    *The Earth’s warmed mildly for 300 years or so, so the first claim has been true in a trivial sense on and off, for about 300 years.

    *97% of climate scientists agree that CO2 warms the atmosphere and because man has expelled extra CO2… man must have contributed to warming.Which 97% of sceptics agree with…

    * The temperature record in the Arctic is highly suggestive of a 60 year temperature cycle in that region, possibly due to the PDO. So citing a 30 years of data might be something of a cherry pick. ;-)

  12. gator69 says:

    I guess Chimel has not heard from German physicist and meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Plus…

    “Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”

    • Chimel is one of those dopes who has studied the subject for a couple of weeks and then comes onto a forum such as this to ‘educate’ a vastly more intelligent crowd. But next week he’ll move onto animal rights or fracking or anti-vac or alternative medicine or whatever the next fad takes him.

      • gator69 says:

        I find myself frequently confronted by these wet behind the ears types, who have no clue that I was a climatology student before their parents met. They always think they have something new to offer, and never have any knowledge of what the science actually says.

        Teaching children WHAT to think rather than HOW to think, is the cruelest form of child abuse, as it never ends.

      • gator69 says:

        It would explain my deep understanding of the subject, having decades of study, beginning with a classic and formal education. You on the other hand, are a cripple of the ‘model age’.

        When you have spent over three decades in deep study, please feel free to comment again.

        • bluegreen says:

          “Not by age but by capacity is wisdom acquired. “

        • gator69 says:

          And you obviously lack both. :lol:

          Do you have any science you would like to discuss, or are you simply here to expose your inner and outer child?

          Got science? :lol:

  13. Ron says:

    There is nothing more dangerous, and I mean NOTHING, than an intellect without wisdom! The progressives prove that statement everyday!!

  14. Chimel says:

    No satellite in 1870, really? Gee, could it be because of the commercial and scientific ships?
    “More extensive written records of Arctic sea ice date back to the mid-18th century.”

    Whatever, I was just trying to answer a question about results prior to 1979, from the exact same source used for the graph in this article. Not sure why suddenly these results are less valid than the post 1979 one, but with all the hate around, this is my last visit to this joke of a site. Have fun keeping your head buried in the sand.

  15. THE GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS ARE FEARFUL OF THE TRUTH. STEVEN GODDARD IS DOING G-D’S WORK!

  16. Nick says:

    The 97% figure tossed around by the media was based on responses to a survey sent to 10,500 “earth” scientists. 7,500, sensitized to foul odors, declined a response. The remaining 3,000 were cherry picked down to the enormous consensus of, yes, 79 warmist “…actively researching and publishing in the field…” i.e. getting paid, 97% of whom agreed that the evidence, and fat grant check, were convincing.

    Never Look a Polar Bear in the Eye by Zac Unger
    Climate Confusion by Roy W.Spencer
    The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism by Steve Gorham
    Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years by Dennis Avery and Fred Singer

  17. bluegreen says:

    Yapping dogs not wrong.

    Global sea ice is a misleading statistic. Increase in Antarctica ice muddles the picture. See this link for possible explanation: http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/09/17/stronger-winds-explain-puzzling-growth-of-sea-ice-in-antarctica/

    And this one about volume of arctic ice:

    http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Living_Planet_Symposium_2013/New_dimensions_on_ice

    Caution Steve, the links discuss real science…

    Sorry to deflate your worldview folks. For fun, also note also that the earth is more or less round!!

    • The world is a big place. There are always ad hoc theories and speculations for why previous predictions and models failed (Such as the rubbish cited above.). And there will always be eco-worriers bravely defending the clearly absurd. It’s a strange kind of settled science that constantly needs new speculations to come out explaining why things aren’t working as planned. Or maybe, like sociology, economics, psychoanalysis, alternate medicine, the field has a large junk science component.

    • Patrick T says:

      1: Warmists point to data point X as proof of AGW.
      2: A few years pass. Data point X shifts and no longer fits their story.
      3: Skeptics (aka “deniers” or “denialists” – which makes you sound like a cult by the way) point this out.
      4: Warmists now insist that data point X is a “misleading indicator” and that only morons would look only to data point X, or that there is some new explanation of the discrepancy, or that AGW would actually cause not what was originally predicted, but rather what is actually happening – – in fact, you only THINK you remember us predicting it. AKA the Squealer tactic, for those of you who have read Animal Farm.

      Sorry, we see right through this.

    • F. Guimaraes says:

      “… Sorry to deflate your worldview folks … ”
      Our world view is not “inflated”, it just reflects the truth of the observed *facts*, that you and your “models” obviously know nothing about.
      And, yes, we are very happy that the *facts* keep proving us right, again and again, and proving you wrong. Every week, every month, a new failed prediction.
      How does it feel, being wrong all the time?
      We don’t need your approval to win this battle, and we are winning.
      Only the *facts*!

      • rho1953 says:

        Gee, it isn’t a misleading stat when it is going your way! I remember all the whining and crying when sea ice was at low levels. Then it was a rock solid indicator of AGW. Meanwhile, back in the real world, Antarctic ice is at all time levels, and there has been no warming for seventeen years. But that might dry up funding and keep the shills from imposing their agenda, so it has to be business as usual.

        • Ana says:

          You’re so right. Bottom line, there is no global warming/climate change. All this scam is about is raising more tax revenue so the libs have more money to buy votes.

  18. bluegreen says:

    Thanks Ana. Aliens from Area 51 told me exactly the same thing. James Hansen in one of them, you know.

  19. Scott says:

    I love global warming – it will be nice to be able to grow food year around anywhere in the world :)

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s