Meltdown Update : No Change In Arctic Sea Ice Over The Last 19 Years

ScreenHunter_203 May. 29 20.37

Daily Arctic Sea Ice Maps

About stevengoddard

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

28 Responses to Meltdown Update : No Change In Arctic Sea Ice Over The Last 19 Years

  1. Truthseeker says:

    There seems to be a lot more land snow/ice in the 2014 picture. I am assuming that is what the white bits signify …

    • There Is No Substitute for Victory. says:

      Isn’t snow land based ice looking to become a glacier? if so there is much more artic ice coverage today than 19 years ago despite President Richard Millhouse Obama’s prevarications to the contrary.

      • Jimbo says:

        They say:

        “Historic snow cover data not displayed on these images. Sea ice concentrations less than 30% are not displayed in these images. Snow cover data is displayed only for most recent dates.”

  2. Mark Luhman says:

    Am I to assume the white over land is snow? If it is funny I though April was the warmest ever?

  3. Send Al to the Pole says:

    It’s a life spiral. And a travesty.

  4. Andy says:

    To be fair May is not a good month to make a comparison, better to take it at minima or maxima.

    There is a very large polynia off the coast of Siberia at present which is interesting. Those pesky icebreakers ๐Ÿ™‚

    Andy

  5. QV says:

    From the actual Cryosphere Today website:

    “Historic snow cover data not displayed on these images. Sea ice concentrations less than 30% are not displayed in these images. Snow cover data is displayed only for most recent dates.”

    • James Strom says:

      Good reading, but if you look at the 1995 image, it shows white on Greenland and some of the islands of the Canadian archipelago, and that’s not sea ice. It would be good to have a fuller account of the change in method.

      • QV says:

        I did wonder about that.
        There appears to be less “snow” on Greenland 1995, but unless you know precisely what the methodology is, you can’t be sure.
        Probably better to ignore the snow altogether.

        • Scott says:

          They’ve always shown Greenland and the archipelago as white because those areas are covered year-round by snow, so they just had it colored that way from the beginning. The variable areas are where the comparisons need to be made.

          -Scott

    • Steve Keohane says:

      I looked at this a few years ago, noticing in 2004-5 they changed the image by adding ‘snow’. I thought they also seemed to change the shoreline, making the basin larger by ~400K sq km as seen as a step function circa 2005 in the arctic sea ice anomaly by CT.: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
      I overlaid 1980 ‘land’ shoreline over the 2008 ‘snow’ shoreline to depict the difference. I did a pixel count at the time, haven’t a clue where my notes are, but white, new ice area coincidentally started at the step function mentioned above.

      • They changed their eye-altitude in 2008 in response to an error I wrote about in The Register. As a result, the area of ice is now smaller in their maps than it used to be.

  6. Robertv says:

    Meanwhile in Netherlands May 29th coldest ever recorded. (1901)

    http://www.telegraaf.nl/teleweer/22680775/__Koudste_29_mei_ooit_gemeten__.html

    This maximum temperature incidentally was at night and on May 27, 1954 it was 29.2 degrees.

  7. emsnews says:

    Yes, there is MUCH more snow and ice on land than 17 years ago! It is definitely colder.

    • QV says:

      โ€œHistoric snow cover data not displayed on these images. Sea ice concentrations less than 30% are not displayed in these images. Snow cover data is displayed only for most recent dates.โ€

  8. James Strom says:

    To add to what I said, the earlier image also appears to show some snow on the Canadian west coast, Norway or Finland, and some of the Russian islands.

    It’s good to track ice in these discussions because unless the physics of ice changes you get a consistent measurement over the years. It’s not perfect–there could be large weather pattern changes–but you don’t adjust ice. (Although you could fake it.)

  9. Dmh says:

    Let’s hope we get the some good positive anomalies in the second semester as in 1995,

    • Dmh says:

      In fact 1995 is considered as the year when the AMO flipped to its positive phase,

      and it could flip back into negative phase soon, in approximate synchronicity with the present recovery of the Arctic ice.

  10. ddeaves says:

    What about all the before and after pictures I see of Glaciers??

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 )

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