Arctic Sea Ice Continues Its Move Back To The 35 Year Mean

Arctic sea ice extent is the highest in a decade, and in a few days will be near or at the 35 year mean. This story will not be covered by any of the criminals in government or the mainstream media who are pushing the global warming scam.ScreenHunter_4907 Dec. 04 07.58 COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

Advertisements

About stevengoddard

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

26 Responses to Arctic Sea Ice Continues Its Move Back To The 35 Year Mean

  1. Matt says:

    Looks like an unprecedented normalization. Surprisingly happening in the hottest year ever. Looks like someone above has a sense of humor.

  2. Jason Calley says:

    “This story will not be covered by any of the criminals in government or the mainstream media who are pushing the global warming scam.”

    That in itself is evidence that the CAGW so-called “scientists” are part of the scam. Consider this: suppose you sincerely believed that you were suffering from a likely-to-be terminal illness. Wouldn’t you greet any good news about your condition with enthusiasm? “Yahoo! I still have a chance!”

    Suppose, on the other hand, that you were pretending to be ill so that you could get a big disability check. In that case, any good reports get ignored, and when anyone asks, “I am doing worse than I thought!”

    • Gail Combs says:

      +1
      An excellent explanation regular people can understand.

    • Jimbo says:

      This is why any ordinary person with enough common sense should be able to smell a rat. The pattern is not normal if you believe we are facing a planetary emergency caused by man’s trace gases. It makes no psychological sense at all.

      • Antarctica record sea ice extent is met with “it’s caused by global warming!”

      • No surface warming for 18+ years is met with “it’s the hottest year evaaaah!”

      • The biosphere is greening is met with “zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz”

      • No change in global drought for 60 years is met with “but there’s a drought in California!”

      • Gail Combs says:

        Jimbo,
        That is why CAGW is off the bottom of the charts as far as a concern of the general public and even teenagers.

        I think the Warmists are running into burnout. After decades of doomsday screaming people are now just ignoring them and getting on with their lives. All that are left are the professional protestors and whiners.

        • Robertv says:

          That is when it becomes more dangerous for We The People. Now that it is off the bottom of the charts and people are just ignoring it and getting on with their lives , they start signing back door treaties with lots of hidden stuff which nobody will read before it passes the congress. Where did we see this before ?

        • Robertv says:

          or like this one.

          Congress is poised to give a foreign mining company 2,400 acres of national forest in Arizona that is cherished ancestral homeland to Apache natives. Controversially, the measure is attached to annual legislation that funds the US Defense Department.

          “Of all people, Apaches and Indians should understand, because we’ve gone through this so many times in our history,”

          http://rt.com/usa/211531-native-indian-lands-mining/

          And guess what name we see again if we talk dirty deals ? Arizona Senator John McCain.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Don’t you love it. US companies are not allowed to mine on PRIVATE land that is near pulic lan but it is A-OK if a foreign company does.

          I am not surprised to see John McLame behind it. I just could not manage to hold my nose and vote for that person so I went third party.

    • cheshirered says:

      @ Jason – Absolutely correct.

      If we were to discover agw theory really is all to pot, what would we need to see as evidence? I guess 30 years of no / very little warming would be a start. Obviously you can’t have 30 years without first going past 5, 10, and 20 years along the way. Yet nobody utters a word of faint praise.

      “Ok, it’s only 18 or so years without warming and we’re not out of the woods yet, but we’re moving in the right direction, folks. Humanity could be saved!”.

      Anyone hear that type of comment from politicians, activists, hacks, IPCC….? Anyone?

      *Tumbleweed……………..*

      • Greg says:

        Speaking of pot, I believe the best way to convert lefties is to point our that more CO2 equals greater yields and potency of marijuana plants.

        • Gail Combs says:

          ROTFLMAO…
          I will have to remember that one.

          Maybe a tee shirt or sweat shirt along these lines?

          with this in the middle instead of the farm:

      • Gail Combs says:

        “Ok, it’s only 18 or so years without warming and we’re not out of the woods yet, but we’re moving in the right direction, folks. Humanity could be saved!”.
        >>>>>>>
        What no one ever mentions is FIFTEEN to SEVENTEEN YEARS was the original criteria for proving CAGW false.

        It is all about the statements made by Warmists:
        1. Prof. Phil Jones saying in the Climategate emails – “Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.” Also see: interview with Judith Curry and Phil Jones

        2. Ben Santer in a 2011 paper “Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.” link

        3. The NOAA falsification criterion is on page S23 of its 2008 report titled The State Of The Climate

        ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, [Maybe THAT is the 95% the IPCC is now talking about.] suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

        4. we are looking at no changes in temperature over a period longer than the 10 years that James Hansen once said would show the models wrong;

        So the falsification criteria is 15 years to 17 years. That is why we start at the present and count backwards. Once we hit 17 years The Goose is Cooked. Unfortunately the Goose seems to be a zombie and keeps rising from the dead.

        Anyone have silver bullets, garlic and a wooden stake?

  3. JN says:

    What is the significance of their other ice extent chart? http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

    • stewart pid says:

      JN read the explanations supplied with each chart but in a nutshelf the old chart masked out the coast line to not have the inaccuracy of bays and inlets messing up the data and the new chart must have a data base which contains the bays and inlets. No big difference but the two can’t be compared to each other (apples and oranges) but both are still showing sea ice. Naturally bays etc are areas that often melt out first, especially if there are rivers flowing into the bay and freeze later. But sometimes the shelter of a bay could allow freezing when the more open areas are too rough with waves for ice to form.
      Hope that helps.

      • JN says:

        Thanks. That’s what I inferred from the explanation on the web page, but the two charts give quite different perspectives on the trends. The new chart suggests current Arctic sea ice is still below the mean minus 1 standard deviation. The old chart doesn’t display a mean but shows ice at a decadal high.

    • Latitude says:

      …and everytime they “improve”…it’s no longer possible to keep up with their fraud

  4. Robertv says:

    Why do most people want a colder Earth ? The Human race came from the tropics where you don’t need clothes and where there is an abundance of food all year around.
    There are even a lot of skeptics that want another ice age to prove that they were right.

    • Gail Combs says:

      We only want it colder so the Warmists look like this:

    • Robertv says:

      It will make playing volleyball on the beach even more stressful for older men.

    • Snowleopard says:

      Global warming is a good thing for humans and many other species. Cold kills.

      We are IN an ice age and our current global warming period (aka as an interglacial) is about over. I don’t want the return of massive glaciation, but it’s about that time again! The developing solar minimum and resultant cooling trend will likely last at least the remainder of this century, and probably much of the next.

      Over the last few millennia the warming periods have sequentially weakened and the cold periods have sequentially strengthened. That trend is likely to continue. Essentially it is up to the volcanoes if this oncoming cold period tips into full glaciation or our descendents see a new (weaker) warm cycle first.

      • Gail Combs says:

        At this point it really is Russian roulette.

        The debate among Quaternary Scientists as to whether or not the Holocene will be a ‘double precession-cycle’ or not is still on going. The last word, from Lisiecki and Raymo (Paleooceanography, 2005) who produced an exhaustive analysis of 57 globally distributed deep ocean cores reaching back about 5 million years is: “.. the June 21 insolation minimum at 65N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘double precession-cycle’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence….”

        Not exactly comforting.

        Even if the earth does not go into full glacial, the earth is close enough to the transition state that the weather is not going to be as nice as it has been. I understand the climate between the double peaks in MIS11 was a rather rough ride weather wise. Data shows “The pronounced climate and environment instability during the interglacial/glacial transition could be consistent with the assumption that it is about a natural phenomenon, characteristic for transitional stages. ”Instability of climate and vegetation dynamics in Central and Eastern Europe during the final stage of the Last Interglacial (Eemian, Mikulino) and Early Glaciation Boettger, et al (Quaternary International 207 [2009]

        That is why all the angst over 0.1C is so very laughable. Wait until Ma Nature tosses 5, 10 or even 15C climate changes at us!

        It is really amusing to read these papers where they say the Holocene will end and shortly ” without human influence….” (Ruddiman Hypothesis) and then hear the Climastrologists screaming we need to rip away the CO2 blanket that is keeping us out of glaciation!

        If the Climastrologists are to be believed we need to be pumping out the CO2 as fast as we can.

        William McClenney, a geologist, managed to corner a Climastrologist about this over at WUWT. jai’s twists and turns justifying CAGW while acknowledging the geologic evidence were something to behold. He really tied himself in knots and made CO2 a truly wondrous gas.

  5. manicbeancounter says:

    You may want to compare this data on Arctic sea ice with some graphics from NASA that are published in the Daily Mail on global warming.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2857093/Hotter-weirder-How-climate-changed-Earth.html
    See if anyone can find a reason for the following.
    1. A nice graphic compares the minimum sea ice extent in 1980 with 2012 – nearly three month after the 2014 minimum.
    2. There is a nice graphic showing the rise in global carbon emissions from 1960 to the present. Notice gradient is quite steep until the mid-70s; there is much shallower gradient to around 2000 when the gradient increases. Why do NASA not produce their temperature anomaly graph to show us all how these emissions are heating up the planet?
    3. There is a simple graphic on sea level rise, derived from the satellite data. Why does the NASA graph start in 1997, when the University of Colorado data, that is available free to download, starts in 1993?

    If you would like some clues try
    http://manicbeancounter.com/2014/12/04/has-nasa-distorted-the-data-on-global-warming/

    • Billy Liar says:

      As one of the commenters in the Mail points out – ‘gotten’ in the title of that piece of trash and mention of Andrew Dressler rather classifies it as junk science rather poorly reported. Of course, everyone is familiar with the Urumqi glacier in China – it’s a pity that the associated image doesn’t even look like the area which contains the glacier; the EPA appear to have the wrong image (deliberately?). Anyway, that area of China is like Glacier NP; they are very small glaciers on the northern side of mountains that only survive because they’re mainly in shadow.

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