Arctic Sea Ice Continues Expansion

[code1211]

Arctic Sea Ice has grown to levels that exceed 2006, 2007 and 2008 for this day each year. A tick or so and 2009 will enter the "Standard Deviation Average" for the 30 year period on which the averages are based.

Watch the speeches in Copenhagen. I'm pretty sure that the over dressed, over bearing, limosine riding, leftist scandinavians in attendance will all hop onto their private jets and fly home after the announcements on this topic.

Blizzards in late Fall, growing Arctic Ice, hunters lost in deep snow in the American west.

Eeeyup! The Global Warming is kicking our collective Ars. Link below is the graph.

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091207_Figure2.png

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Earth mocks the Warmers every chance it gets, which is why they've resorted to lies and phony science

 

[Bfgrn]

Arctic Sea Ice has grown to levels that exceed 2006, 2007 and 2008 for this day each year. A tick or so and 2009 will enter the "Standard Deviation Average" for the 30 year period on which the averages are based.

Watch the speeches in Copenhagen. I'm pretty sure that the over dressed, over bearing, limosine riding, leftist scandinavians in attendance will all hop onto their private jets and fly home after the announcements on this topic.

Blizzards in late Fall, growing Arctic Ice, hunters lost in deep snow in the American west.

Eeeyup! The Global Warming is kicking our collective Ars. Link below is the graph.

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091207_Figure2.png

From YOUR linked site...

Studying sea ice
Is Arctic sea ice really declining?

Yes, the data show that Arctic sea ice really is in a state of ongoing decline. The reason we know this is because satellites offer us a long-term record. As of September 2007, the September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 was approximately -10 percent per decade, or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year. Although the 2009 sea ice minimum was larger than the past two years, the rate of decline since 1979 increased to -11.2 percent per decade. September is the month that Arctic sea ice melts back to its lowest point, known as the annual minimum, and is an important indicator of overall ice conditions. However, sea ice in the Arctic is in decline in all months and the decline is greater and the rate faster than natural causes could account for. For more on the basics of sea ice, read Quick Facts on Arctic Sea Ice.

Is Arctic sea ice starting to recover?

In 2008, Arctic sea ice reached a minimum extent that was about 10 percent greater than the record low of 2007, and the minimum extent in 2009 was greater than either 2007 or 2008. Does this mean that Arctic sea ice is beginning to recover?

Even though the extent of Arctic sea ice has not returned to the record low of 2007, the data show that it is not recovering. To recover would mean returning to within its previous, long-term range. Arctic sea ice in September 2008 remained 34 percent below the average extent from 1979 to 2000, and in September 2009, it was 24 percent below the long term average. In addition, sea ice remains much thinner than in the past, and so is more vulnerable to further decline. The data suggest that the ice reached a record low volume in 2008, and has thinned even more in 2009. Sea ice extent normally varies from year to year, much like the weather changes from day to day. But just as one warm day in October does not negate a cooling trend toward winter, a slight annual gain in sea ice extent over a record low does not negate the long-term decline.

In addition, ice extent is only one measure of sea ice. Satellite measurements from NASA show that in 2008, Arctic sea ice was thinner than 2007, and likely reached a record low volume. So, what would scientists call a recovery in sea ice? First, a true recovery would continue over a longer time period than two years. Second, scientists would expect to see a series of minimum sea ice extents that not only exceed the previous year, but also return to within the range of natural variation. In a recovery, scientists would also expect to see a return to an Arctic sea ice cover dominated by thicker, multiyear ice.

Old v. new ice in Arctic, February 2009: These maps show the median age of February sea ice from 1981-2009 (left) and February 2009 (right). As of February 2009, ice older than two years accounted for less than 10 percent of the ice cover. Data provided by J. Maslanik, C. Fowler, University of Colorado, Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Earth as the Warmers would want it, the good ole days when most of NY Was under 20 feet of ice

 

[uscitizen]

So the article says that artic ice is declining after all

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So the article says that artic ice is declining after all

Only in a Phil Jones "Hide the Decline" sort of way

 

[code1211]

Arctic Sea Ice has grown to levels that exceed 2006, 2007 and 2008 for this day each year. A tick or so and 2009 will enter the "Standard Deviation Average" for the 30 year period on which the averages are based.

Watch the speeches in Copenhagen. I'm pretty sure that the over dressed, over bearing, limosine riding, leftist scandinavians in attendance will all hop onto their private jets and fly home after the announcements on this topic.

Blizzards in late Fall, growing Arctic Ice, hunters lost in deep snow in the American west.

Eeeyup! The Global Warming is kicking our collective Ars. Link below is the graph.

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091207_Figure2.png

From YOUR linked site...

Studying sea ice
Is Arctic sea ice really declining?

<snip>
Is Arctic sea ice starting to recover?

In 2008, Arctic sea ice reached a minimum extent that was about 10 percent greater than the record low of 2007, and the minimum extent in 2009 was greater than either 2007 or 2008. Does this mean that Arctic sea ice is beginning to recover?

Even though the extent of Arctic sea ice has not returned to the record low of 2007, the data show that it is not recovering. To recover would mean returning to within its previous, long-term range. Arctic sea ice in September 2008 remained 34 percent below the average extent from 1979 to 2000, and in September 2009, it was 24 percent below the long term average. In addition, sea ice remains much thinner than in the past, and so is more vulnerable to further decline. The data suggest that the ice reached a record low volume in 2008, and has thinned even more in 2009. Sea ice extent normally varies from year to year, much like the weather changes from day to day. But just as one warm day in October does not negate a cooling trend toward winter, a slight annual gain in sea ice extent over a record low does not negate the long-term decline.

<snip>

Old v. new ice in Arctic, February 2009: These maps show the median age of February sea ice from 1981-2009 (left) and February 2009 (right). As of February 2009, ice older than two years accounted for less than 10 percent of the ice cover. Data provided by J. Maslanik, C. Fowler, University of Colorado, Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research.

So the low was recent and an increase has followed that. When it reaches its low and then increases, you'd almost think that it's increasing. However, those that study this say that an increase is a continued decrease.

2009 is 10% or so less reduced than was 2008. Is that a 10% increase or just a 10% reduced decrease? Experts say this is not thick enough to be an increase. It took 30+ years for the thinness to occur and an increase seems to me, to be an increase.

It sounds like a fantasy football geek saying that his real life team is great because it's the best in one category or another while the win-loss columns show a last place. At some point, the real, unvarnished data is the data. Either they win or they lose.

I worked with an accountant once who always returned to the phrase, "The number is the number". What he meant was that any justification or manipulation of data was only smoke and mirrors. At the end of the day, the numbers are the numbers. Wishing they were something that they are not does not change reality.

Won't change the reality of the data.

Maybe the reality of the funding...

 

[Bfgrn]

Arctic Sea Ice has grown to levels that exceed 2006, 2007 and 2008 for this day each year. A tick or so and 2009 will enter the "Standard Deviation Average" for the 30 year period on which the averages are based.

Watch the speeches in Copenhagen. I'm pretty sure that the over dressed, over bearing, limosine riding, leftist scandinavians in attendance will all hop onto their private jets and fly home after the announcements on this topic.

Blizzards in late Fall, growing Arctic Ice, hunters lost in deep snow in the American west.

Eeeyup! The Global Warming is kicking our collective Ars. Link below is the graph.

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091207_Figure2.png

From YOUR linked site...

Studying sea ice
Is Arctic sea ice really declining?

<snip>
Is Arctic sea ice starting to recover?

In 2008, Arctic sea ice reached a minimum extent that was about 10 percent greater than the record low of 2007, and the minimum extent in 2009 was greater than either 2007 or 2008. Does this mean that Arctic sea ice is beginning to recover?

Even though the extent of Arctic sea ice has not returned to the record low of 2007, the data show that it is not recovering. To recover would mean returning to within its previous, long-term range. Arctic sea ice in September 2008 remained 34 percent below the average extent from 1979 to 2000, and in September 2009, it was 24 percent below the long term average. In addition, sea ice remains much thinner than in the past, and so is more vulnerable to further decline. The data suggest that the ice reached a record low volume in 2008, and has thinned even more in 2009. Sea ice extent normally varies from year to year, much like the weather changes from day to day. But just as one warm day in October does not negate a cooling trend toward winter, a slight annual gain in sea ice extent over a record low does not negate the long-term decline.

<snip>

Old v. new ice in Arctic, February 2009: These maps show the median age of February sea ice from 1981-2009 (left) and February 2009 (right). As of February 2009, ice older than two years accounted for less than 10 percent of the ice cover. Data provided by J. Maslanik, C. Fowler, University of Colorado, Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research.

So the low was recent and an increase has followed that. When it reaches its low and then increases, you'd almost think that it's increasing. However, those that study this say that an increase is a continued decrease.

2009 is 10% or so less reduced than was 2008. Is that a 10% increase or just a 10% reduced decrease? Experts say this is not thick enough to be an increase. It took 30+ years for the thinness to occur and an increase seems to me, to be an increase.

It sounds like a fantasy football geek saying that his real life team is great because it's the best in one category or another while the win-loss columns show a last place. At some point, the real, unvarnished data is the data. Either they win or they lose.

I worked with an accountant once who always returned to the phrase, "The number is the number". What he meant was that any justification or manipulation of data was only smoke and mirrors. At the end of the day, the numbers are the numbers. Wishing they were something that they are not does not change reality.

Won't change the reality of the data.

Maybe the reality of the funding...

OR...maybe the reality is it's happening...does THAT ever cross your mind?

 

[code1211]

Arctic Sea Ice has grown to levels that exceed 2006, 2007 and 2008 for this day each year. A tick or so and 2009 will enter the "Standard Deviation Average" for the 30 year period on which the averages are based.

Watch the speeches in Copenhagen. I'm pretty sure that the over dressed, over bearing, limosine riding, leftist scandinavians in attendance will all hop onto their private jets and fly home after the announcements on this topic.

Blizzards in late Fall, growing Arctic Ice, hunters lost in deep snow in the American west.

Eeeyup! The Global Warming is kicking our collective Ars. Link below is the graph.

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091207_Figure2.png

From YOUR linked site...

Studying sea ice
Is Arctic sea ice really declining?

<snip>

Old v. new ice in Arctic, February 2009: These maps show the median age of February sea ice from 1981-2009 (left) and February 2009 (right). As of February 2009, ice older than two years accounted for less than 10 percent of the ice cover. Data provided by J. Maslanik, C. Fowler, University of Colorado, Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research.

When I re-looked at your picture here, the images were from February of 2009. Do you have a similar image from DECEMBER of 2009?

December of 2009, that is recently, is where the the graph of the Arctic Sea Ice Extent was linked.

 

[ProudFossil]

Earth mocks the Warmers every chance it gets, which is why they've resorted to lies and phony science

The problem is 90% of the people believe them.

 

[uscitizen]

Artic ice always grows in the winter.

 

[code1211]

From YOUR linked site...

Studying sea ice
Is Arctic sea ice really declining?

<snip>
Is Arctic sea ice starting to recover?

In 2008, Arctic sea ice reached a minimum extent that was about 10 percent greater than the record low of 2007, and the minimum extent in 2009 was greater than either 2007 or 2008. Does this mean that Arctic sea ice is beginning to recover?

Even though the extent of Arctic sea ice has not returned to the record low of 2007, the data show that it is not recovering. To recover would mean returning to within its previous, long-term range. Arctic sea ice in September 2008 remained 34 percent below the average extent from 1979 to 2000, and in September 2009, it was 24 percent below the long term average. In addition, sea ice remains much thinner than in the past, and so is more vulnerable to further decline. The data suggest that the ice reached a record low volume in 2008, and has thinned even more in 2009. Sea ice extent normally varies from year to year, much like the weather changes from day to day. But just as one warm day in October does not negate a cooling trend toward winter, a slight annual gain in sea ice extent over a record low does not negate the long-term decline.

<snip>

Old v. new ice in Arctic, February 2009: These maps show the median age of February sea ice from 1981-2009 (left) and February 2009 (right). As of February 2009, ice older than two years accounted for less than 10 percent of the ice cover. Data provided by J. Maslanik, C. Fowler, University of Colorado, Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research.

So the low was recent and an increase has followed that. When it reaches its low and then increases, you'd almost think that it's increasing. However, those that study this say that an increase is a continued decrease.

2009 is 10% or so less reduced than was 2008. Is that a 10% increase or just a 10% reduced decrease? Experts say this is not thick enough to be an increase. It took 30+ years for the thinness to occur and an increase seems to me, to be an increase.

It sounds like a fantasy football geek saying that his real life team is great because it's the best in one category or another while the win-loss columns show a last place. At some point, the real, unvarnished data is the data. Either they win or they lose.

I worked with an accountant once who always returned to the phrase, "The number is the number". What he meant was that any justification or manipulation of data was only smoke and mirrors. At the end of the day, the numbers are the numbers. Wishing they were something that they are not does not change reality.

Won't change the reality of the data.

Maybe the reality of the funding...

OR...maybe the reality is it's happening...does THAT ever cross your mind?

The question in my mind is, "WHAT is it that's happening?" According to the experts, there was a decline of ice. They showed pictures, they said it indicated warming and that CO2 emitted by activities of man is to blame. That the CO2 is the PRIMARY cause of warming.

When they hold up an example one year, call it proof and recomend a course of action, why is it heresy to re-examine that "proof" as time goes on? The Ice Extent, which they said was decreasing and was therefore a proof of warming caused by CO2 emitted by the activities of man as the PRIMARY cause would continue to decrease if we did not stop the emissions.

We did not stop the CO2 emissions. In truth, we increased the CO2 emissions. The ice extent decrease stopped anyway. I have made a living seeing the obvious when the "experts" are telling me that up is down and left is right and light is dark. I have a healthy suspiscion of anyone who tells me to trust them in spite of what I can SEE to be true.

The prediction is that ice extent will decrease. Ice extent has increased. The prediction was wrong. This is not an isolated case of the prediction being wrong.

If all predictions were right, I would be less skeptical of their expertise. As it is, I remain a skeptic, no a denier, a skeptic.

My question for you is why skepticism does not seem to be in your wheelhouse at all.

Isn't the complete lack of accuracy in the predictions of the Warmers cause for you to have even the slightest doubt of their knowledge on this topic? It seems like it should. If anyone else continuously makes wrong predictions, their credibility eventually suffers.

Why not this group?

 

[code1211]

Artic ice always grows in the winter.

Exactly. What is important in this is the extent of the growth. Please recall that the prediction is that there will be no Arctic Ice Cap by whatever year the prediction cites.

When the decrease is continuous, that's supportable. When the decrease is interupted and reversed measured against same day different year, that becomes grist for the mill.

The cry was that in 2006, the Arctic Sea Ice Extent was far below the average of thirty years used as the measure. Since that date, the extent has expanded, same day different year, and is now almost within the standard deviation as defined by the scientists.

When it enters the standard deviation range, it is suddenly within the average for that 30 years again.

Problem solved and we don't need to stop running diesel fuel through the combines and initiate a world wide famine.

This should be good news. Are we hearing the good news from the "experts" or are we hearing continued prediction of dire consequence?

 

[Old Rocks]

Arctic Sea Ice has grown to levels that exceed 2006, 2007 and 2008 for this day each year. A tick or so and 2009 will enter the "Standard Deviation Average" for the 30 year period on which the averages are based.

Watch the speeches in Copenhagen. I'm pretty sure that the over dressed, over bearing, limosine riding, leftist scandinavians in attendance will all hop onto their private jets and fly home after the announcements on this topic.

Blizzards in late Fall, growing Arctic Ice, hunters lost in deep snow in the American west.

Eeeyup! The Global Warming is kicking our collective Ars. Link below is the graph.

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091207_Figure2.png

The daily, and weekly freeze up for the Arctic is highly variable. If you look at the daily freezeup, you will note that we are now sharply down.

It would be best for the ice to freeze to record levels. We can all hope. But not likely, for if you go by ice volume, rather than surface coverage, the trend has been down for the last decade, and radically down for the last three years.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

 

[Sinatra]

It should be realized that the "long term average" so often cited regarding Arctic Sea ice begins during an era of colder than normal temps - the 1970's and for a portion of the 1980's.

The fact remains, ice mass has been accumulating steadily in the Arctic since the warming of the late 1990's.

Add to the fact that the Antactic ice accumulations - which accounts for 70% of all fresh water (and 90% of all ice) on Earth, and we have yet another example of exaggerated doom n gloom on the part of the flat earth warmers. The poles go through periods of accumulation and decline, and will continue to do so long after we have shuffled off the stage.

There was marginal warming in the 1990s. There has been marginal cooling for nearly a decade since.

Overall, marginal warming is far more beneficial to the earth than cooling. Let us hope this cooling trend does not continue for too long or become more severe...

 

[Bfgrn]

It should be realized that the "long term average" so often cited regarding Arctic Sea ice begins during an era of colder than normal temps - the 1970's and for a portion of the 1980's.

The fact remains, ice mass has been accumulating steadily in the Arctic since the warming of the late 1990's.

Add to the fact that the Antactic ice accumulations - which accounts for 70% of all fresh water (and 90% of all ice) on Earth, and we have yet another example of exaggerated doom n gloom on the part of the flat earth warmers. The poles go through periods of accumulation and decline, and will continue to do so long after we have shuffled off the stage.

There was marginal warming in the 1990s. There has been marginal cooling for nearly a decade since.

Overall, marginal warming is far more beneficial to the earth than cooling. Let us hope this cooling trend does not continue for too long or become more severe...

Are you a scientist? Provide the source of your info...

 

[Bfgrn]

So the low was recent and an increase has followed that. When it reaches its low and then increases, you'd almost think that it's increasing. However, those that study this say that an increase is a continued decrease.

2009 is 10% or so less reduced than was 2008. Is that a 10% increase or just a 10% reduced decrease? Experts say this is not thick enough to be an increase. It took 30+ years for the thinness to occur and an increase seems to me, to be an increase.

It sounds like a fantasy football geek saying that his real life team is great because it's the best in one category or another while the win-loss columns show a last place. At some point, the real, unvarnished data is the data. Either they win or they lose.

I worked with an accountant once who always returned to the phrase, "The number is the number". What he meant was that any justification or manipulation of data was only smoke and mirrors. At the end of the day, the numbers are the numbers. Wishing they were something that they are not does not change reality.

Won't change the reality of the data.

Maybe the reality of the funding...

OR...maybe the reality is it's happening...does THAT ever cross your mind?

The question in my mind is, "WHAT is it that's happening?" According to the experts, there was a decline of ice. They showed pictures, they said it indicated warming and that CO2 emitted by activities of man is to blame. That the CO2 is the PRIMARY cause of warming.

When they hold up an example one year, call it proof and recomend a course of action, why is it heresy to re-examine that "proof" as time goes on? The Ice Extent, which they said was decreasing and was therefore a proof of warming caused by CO2 emitted by the activities of man as the PRIMARY cause would continue to decrease if we did not stop the emissions.

We did not stop the CO2 emissions. In truth, we increased the CO2 emissions. The ice extent decrease stopped anyway. I have made a living seeing the obvious when the "experts" are telling me that up is down and left is right and light is dark. I have a healthy suspiscion of anyone who tells me to trust them in spite of what I can SEE to be true.

The prediction is that ice extent will decrease. Ice extent has increased. The prediction was wrong. This is not an isolated case of the prediction being wrong.

If all predictions were right, I would be less skeptical of their expertise. As it is, I remain a skeptic, no a denier, a skeptic.

My question for you is why skepticism does not seem to be in your wheelhouse at all.

Isn't the complete lack of accuracy in the predictions of the Warmers cause for you to have even the slightest doubt of their knowledge on this topic? It seems like it should. If anyone else continuously makes wrong predictions, their credibility eventually suffers.

Why not this group?

I am a skeptic, but I don't believe the scientists have an ulterior motive...

YOU are the one that said: "Maybe the reality of the funding"

When you do even a little bit of research into deniers it always leads back to funding by the very corporations that have billions at stake if we turn away from fossil fuels...WHY are you not skeptical of the reality of THAT funding?

 

[Sinatra]

It should be realized that the "long term average" so often cited regarding Arctic Sea ice begins during an era of colder than normal temps - the 1970's and for a portion of the 1980's.

The fact remains, ice mass has been accumulating steadily in the Arctic since the warming of the late 1990's.

Add to the fact that the Antactic ice accumulations - which accounts for 70% of all fresh water (and 90% of all ice) on Earth, and we have yet another example of exaggerated doom n gloom on the part of the flat earth warmers. The poles go through periods of accumulation and decline, and will continue to do so long after we have shuffled off the stage.

There was marginal warming in the 1990s. There has been marginal cooling for nearly a decade since.

Overall, marginal warming is far more beneficial to the earth than cooling. Let us hope this cooling trend does not continue for too long or become more severe...

Are you a scientist? Provide the source of your info...

If you are not aware of even the most basic understanding of the issue, perhaps you should realize them first prior to commenting?

Just a suggestion...

 

[Bfgrn]

It should be realized that the "long term average" so often cited regarding Arctic Sea ice begins during an era of colder than normal temps - the 1970's and for a portion of the 1980's.

The fact remains, ice mass has been accumulating steadily in the Arctic since the warming of the late 1990's.

Add to the fact that the Antactic ice accumulations - which accounts for 70% of all fresh water (and 90% of all ice) on Earth, and we have yet another example of exaggerated doom n gloom on the part of the flat earth warmers. The poles go through periods of accumulation and decline, and will continue to do so long after we have shuffled off the stage.

There was marginal warming in the 1990s. There has been marginal cooling for nearly a decade since.

Overall, marginal warming is far more beneficial to the earth than cooling. Let us hope this cooling trend does not continue for too long or become more severe...

Are you a scientist? Provide the source of your info...

If you are not aware of even the most basic understanding of the issue, perhaps you should realize them first prior to commenting?

Just a suggestion...

Bullshit obfuscation, you can't provide a source...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obviously the Arctic Sea is melting because parts of it must be in close contact with parts of the Earth that are "millions of degrees"

How could it NOT melt?