Arctic Sea Ice Extent Continues Near A Decadal High

Arctic sea ice extent was at or near a decadal high for most of the last two months of 2014, and after a brief hiatus (and sensor error yesterday) is back near that position again.

ScreenHunter_776 Jan. 20 08.48


ScreenHunter_777 Jan. 20 08.48

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

About stevengoddard

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

39 Responses to Arctic Sea Ice Extent Continues Near A Decadal High

  1. gator69 says:

    Sensor error? Or was someone teasing the highly gullible alarmists?

  2. Jim Hunt says:

    I assume you actually mean “near a decadal high for the time of year” or some such? If so then it isn’t according to NSIDC:

    • gator69 says:

      Jimbo! I am dying to see your confrontation with Al Gore over his use of the most alarmist Arctic ‘projection’ ever, when he spoke to the world in Oslo.

      Have you contacted him yet?

      Got credibility? ;lol:

      • Be serious, gator. Jim Hunt (you can guess the rhyming Cockney slang here) is using an “index” provided by the guys who can’t send a human into space any more without killing them. That’s completely different from using some vague thing like “extent”.

        • Jim Hunt says:

          You seem to be a trifle confused?. NSIDC != NASA

        • gator69 says:

          You appear to be incredible. Contacted Gore yet?

        • Gail Combs says:

          I would not believe NASA if they told me when the sun was supposed to rise tomorrow without checking other sources first. NASA, NOAA and the US government has lost ALL credibility.

          The USA ratified UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 21/03/94 thanks to the deceit of Hansen and ex-senator Tim Wirth.

          “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

          That’s from the official UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ( The term specifically excludes all natural climate change, and even excludes any caused by humans due to, for example, land clearance or city building, considering only atmospheric changes.

          So now thanks to that treaty, ONLY a ” change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity” is allowed to be spoken of by the US government employees.

          Noted energy expert and Princeton physicist Dr. Will Happer has sharply criticized global warming alarmism. Happer, author of over 200 scientific papers…

          “I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect”, said Happer. “Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.”

          Dr. Happer views climate change as a predominately natural process. “The earth’s climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”

          In 1991, Happer was appointed Director of Energy Research for the US Department of Energy. In 1993, he testified before Congress that the scientific data didn’t support widespread fears about the dangers of the ozone hole and global warming, remarks that caused then-Vice President Al Gore to fire him. “I was told that science was not going to intrude on public policy”, he said. “I did not need the job that badly”.….

          Was in

    • Les Johnson says:

      You seem confused Jim Hunt. Tony said “decadal high”, and gave a chart with the last 10 years, plus YTD.

      You gave a chart for this YTD, and the previous 2 years.

      Since when are 2 years a decade?

      • Jim Hunt says:

        Hello again Les! Long time no see.

        If you followed my link you’d no doubt note that (unlike DMI) the NSIDC cleverly allow you to display only the years of particular interest to you. In this case that’s 2008, 2009 and 2015. Unless I am much mistaken those all fall within the most recent decade, however defined.

        • gator69 says:

          Can you please provide a copy of the post you wrote about Al Gore’s ridiculous alarmist ‘projection’ he made in Oslo, and how wrong it was to do so.


        • Les Johnson says:

          You are in a “fruit” mode today. You are comparing apples to oranges, and cherry picking.

          The DMI chart is 30% extent, the NSIDC is 15%. (apples and oranges)

          You pick two years that are higher, to compare. (the cherry pick)

          While plenty of fruit is essential for a good diet, it sucks in science.

        • Les Johnson says:

          Jim Hunt: When using your source, 2105 is the 4th highest on day 19, out of the last 11 years.

          2015 is above the mean and the median.

          Statistically, 2015 is = or > all years except 2009, using a std dev of 0.188548041

          In other words, using your source, 2015 is at or near decadal highs.

        • Les Johnson says:

          Still using your source, using the std dev of Day 19 (0.9545), then 2015 is = or > than ALL years in the record, 2005-2015.

          In other words, 2015 is at decadal highs using your source.

          Well done.

        • Les Johnson says:

          Jim Hunt: From your source:

          The std dev 0.188548041 is over the record from 2005 to 2015.

          The std dev 0.9545 is over the entire record.

          Just in case you want to check.

        • Jim Hunt says:

          Les – So you’re proposing 1SD of 10 (or is it 11) samples on a particular day of the year as a definition of “near” and/or “close”? Do you have anything to suggest regarding “exactly” and “likely”?

          Are apples better than oranges, or vice versa? Why?

          Regarding cherries, what happens if you do your sums for day 8 instead of day 19 on the NSIDC data?

          What happens if you try and do your sums on the various flavours of DMI data?

        • Les Johnson says:

          Nice try at diversion. Tony was correct to say ice extent was at or near decadal highs, using either 30% or 15% extent.

          Admit you are wrong and move on.

        • Jim Hunt says:

          Les – I pose (most of) those questions in here, because nobody answered them over there:

          Nice try at diversion. You do at least appear to be taking a “statistical” rather than “eyeball” approach to matters. “Real Science” possibly? Now please answer the questions.

        • Jim,

          Do you believe that Al Gore’s Nobel Prize winning forecast of ice-free in 2014 was correct?

        • Les Johnson says:

          Tony said “at or near decadal highs”, on day 19. He is correct, regardless of data source, or statistical method.

          Admit you are wrong, or show I am wrong.

          Quit trying to move the thimble…

        • Jim Hunt says:

          Les – I’m not the one moving the thimble. To reiterate

          1. I graciously answer a question about surface temperature in the thread I link to above that had remained unanswered by Tony or anyone else for over 13 hours.

          2. I receive an earful of abuse for my trouble, and Tony introduces the topic of Arctic sea ice and then refuses to answer any of my pertinent questions.

          3. Tony starts this new thread on the topic of Arctic sea ice, which seems to me like the logical place to continue that conversation.

          4. I don’t know what numbers you are using supposedly from “my source”, but my spreadsheet contains the daily NSIDC extent numbers. Using your standard deviation 13.82223 (from 2015) + 0.188548041 < 14.22053 (from 2009) – Q.E.D?

          5. Please answer my other questions too.

        • Nobody cares about your bullshit

        • Jim Hunt says:

          I care though Tony!

          How big are the error bars on your BS detector?

        • Jim Hunt says:

          No response yet Les? Can I safely assume that you approve of my analysis?

      • catweazle666 says:

        “Since when are 2 years a decade?”

        When they’ve been redesignated to be by cliamte McScientists like little Jimmy C – er, sorry – Hunt, of course!

    • The meaning of my statement is obvious to anyone with an IQ higher than a turnip.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Jim Hunt doesn’t even qualify for turnip.

        • gator69 says:

          Speaking of qualifications…

          Jim Hunt
          Exeter, South West England
          Surrealist programmer and cutting edge contemporary artist!

          Now we understand the ‘surreal’ part of his posts! 😆

          Surrealism is a bourgeois disaffection; that its militants thought it universal is only one of the signs that it is typically bourgeois.
          -Susan Sontag

        • Jim Hunt says:

          “The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.”

          – Salvador Dali

        • gator69 says:

          Al Gore. Have you contacted him yet, and badgered him about his extremely alarmist ‘projection’ that he used on a world stage in Oslo, in order to get filthy rich?

          His ridiculous ‘projection’ was not even close to the mark.

          Why do you stalk Tony, and not go after others?

          Got problems? 😆

    • NSIDC scientists provide Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis, with partial support from NASA.

      I think you’re a trifle mentally ill.

  3. sabretoothed says:

    Totally make things up, and still keep your job at NASA (Become the Chief scientist) Chief Cryosphere Scientist (ST level)
    NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD

    How’s that “Tipping point going”?

  4. gator69 says:

    Jimbo! I am still anxiously waiting to see your confrontation with Al Gore over his use of the most alarmist Arctic ‘projection’ ever, when he spoke to the world in Oslo.

    Extreme hyperbole to make a buck or billion

    Tony basically does this for free.

    So what is your beef really?

    It clearly isn’t about accuracy

    Have you contacted Gore yet?

    Can you spell ‘hypocrite’?

    Got credibility? 😆

  5. gofer says:

    It seems the new meme in various article comments has now become “Gore is not a scientist”. I guess Inconvenient Truth can be ignored since he is not qualified.

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