Arctic sea ice hits a new low for January.

[jc456]

They would be 15% and 30% ice extents measures and "should" is the past tense of "shall" and means "must" or "ought".

No, 'should' does not. Should is a probably but May not, and the may not is huge.

One could 'expect' but can never guarantee. So it has limitations

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Arctic Weather Conditions

• Akranes
  28°
• Akureyri
  23°
• Ammassalik
  15°
• Appaarsuit
  -4°
• Appamiut
  28°
• Aqisserniaq
  31°
• Breidhdalsvik
  27°
• Fagurholsmyri
  25°
• Frederikshab
  29°
• Gardhabaer
  28°

• Hafnarfjordhur
  28°
• Hof
  29°
• Keflavik
  29°
• Kopavogur
  28°
• Nuuk
  30°
• 
  Reykjavik
  28°
• Selfoss
  27°
• Seydisfoerdur
  28°
• Skeggjastadhir
  25°
• Skinnastadhir
  27°

• more Arctic Weather Forecasts >

Anyone notice anything about todays Arctic temperatures?

All are about 66 north so this is the furthers South of the "melting Arctic

 

[Old Rocks]

Can the ocean freeze?

Ocean water freezes just like freshwater, but at lower temperatures. Fresh water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit but seawater freezes at about 28.4 degrees Fahrenheit, because of the salt in it. When seawater freezes, however, the ice contains very little salt because only the water part freezes. It can be melted down to use as drinking water.

At least 15 percent of the ocean is covered by sea ice some part of the year. On average, sea ice covers almost about 10 million square miles of the Earth.

Sea water becomes more and more dense as it becomes colder, right down to its freezing point. Fresh water, on the other hand, is most dense while still at 39.2 degrees Fahrenheit, well above the freezing point. The average temperature of all ocean water is about 38.3 degrees Fahrenheit.

Note that there are five cities with temperatures above the freezing point of seawater. And seven within about 1/2 degree of freezing. And only two significantly below the freezing point of seawater. And this is mid-February, not late March. I think that your post does not say at all what you want it to, Frankie Boy. LOL

 

[mamooth]

This type of graph, 30% extent, was started in 2005 to fix certain types of problems. It seems that the discrepancy with the 15% ice extent graphs has led to a 'dilution of the message', hence it has been discontinued.

Given that we can all go read WUWT, it's not necessary for you to breathlessly parrot every new WUWT conspiracy theory that comes down the pipe. But you will anyways, because it's all you're capable of.

For those who care, Nevin's Arctic Sea Ice blog rips that conspiracy theory into tiny little bits.

Grasping at uncorrected straws

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can the ocean freeze?

Ocean water freezes just like freshwater, but at lower temperatures. Fresh water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit but seawater freezes at about 28.4 degrees Fahrenheit, because of the salt in it. When seawater freezes, however, the ice contains very little salt because only the water part freezes. It can be melted down to use as drinking water.

At least 15 percent of the ocean is covered by sea ice some part of the year. On average, sea ice covers almost about 10 million square miles of the Earth.

Sea water becomes more and more dense as it becomes colder, right down to its freezing point. Fresh water, on the other hand, is most dense while still at 39.2 degrees Fahrenheit, well above the freezing point. The average temperature of all ocean water is about 38.3 degrees Fahrenheit.

Note that there are five cities with temperatures above the freezing point of seawater. And seven within about 1/2 degree of freezing. And only two significantly below the freezing point of seawater. And this is mid-February, not late March. I think that your post does not say at all what you want it to, Frankie Boy. LOL

Most of the cities were at or below freezing and again, that was the southern fringe of the Arctic Circle. How does that cause "The mostest Ice melt EVAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"?

 

[IanC]

This type of graph, 30% extent, was started in 2005 to fix certain types of problems. It seems that the discrepancy with the 15% ice extent graphs has led to a 'dilution of the message', hence it has been discontinued.

Given that we can all go read WUWT, it's not necessary for you to breathlessly parrot every new WUWT conspiracy theory that comes down the pipe. But you will anyways, because it's all you're capable of.

For those who care, Nevin's Arctic Sea Ice blog rips that conspiracy theory into tiny little bits.

Grasping at uncorrected straws

Hahahaha. Same old poo flinging by the rather bad smelling monkey. Do you wash your hands between tantrums?

I think it is very funny that the 30% ice extent graph was dropped only a few days after I used it on this thread. At the time I expected someone to point out that the two types of graph were using different algorithms to detect ice, and that the ranges were different in length hence the averages and standard deviations would be incommensurate. But no one did.

Neven's blog article likewise did not address any of these factors, instead just treated them as equivalents.

I am actually waiting for someone from DMI to put forth a coherent explanation of the situation that will be defendable. Perhaps the whole thing is reasonable but perhaps not.


As far as taking Neven's skill at deciphering the complexities of Arctic ice...well let's go back to one of his more famous examples of statistics and graph making abilities.

An ice free Arctic even in winter by 2032!!!

Hahahahahahahahaha

 

[Crick]

I'm going to save that for you Ian.

 

[IanC]

I'm going to save that for you Ian.

Hahahaha, crick is such a 'tard. And a coward.

He has been reduced to giving one sentence replies that say nothing.

Perhaps he has finally figured out the wisdom of "better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt".

Hahahaha

 

[mamooth]

While I do not totally agree with this statement, I find it hilarious that it sent mamooth into yet another fit of poo flinging. The rhetoric of climate debate is even worse that that of American presidential politics.

Ian, given that you do nothing but scream insults at people now, you have no business projecting your own ugly nature on to rational people.

Now, instead of replying to your endless content-free insult posts in kind, I'll keep doing what upsets you the most, which is talk about the science.

Gross Deception About DMI’s “Missing Graph” | The Great White Con

Homewood, the author of your conspiracy theory, lied about it. There is no question about that. This is from his blog post:

"It must be pointed out that DMI has never stated that there is any problem with the 30% version, or reason to doubt it…"

This is what DMI said about the graph months before:

"The plot above replaces an earlier sea ice extent map, that was based on data with the coastal zones mapped out. The coastal map implied that the previous sea ice estimates were underestimated. The new plot displays the absolute sea ice extent. The old plot can still be viewed here <link> for a while."

That is, directly contrary to Homewood's claim, DMI flat out said the graph was a bad estimate, and removed it months ago.

Yet here you are claiming DMI was calling it perfect data up until a few days ago.

Ian, you've been parroting bullshit lies. You didn't know better before. Now you do, so you no longer have ignorance as an excuse.

Address that. Or just hurl insults and run back to your SafeSpace at WUWT, where reality isn't allowed in to torment you.

 

[Old Rocks]

This type of graph, 30% extent, was started in 2005 to fix certain types of problems. It seems that the discrepancy with the 15% ice extent graphs has led to a 'dilution of the message', hence it has been discontinued.

Given that we can all go read WUWT, it's not necessary for you to breathlessly parrot every new WUWT conspiracy theory that comes down the pipe. But you will anyways, because it's all you're capable of.

For those who care, Nevin's Arctic Sea Ice blog rips that conspiracy theory into tiny little bits.

Grasping at uncorrected straws

Hahahaha. Same old poo flinging by the rather bad smelling monkey. Do you wash your hands between tantrums?

I think it is very funny that the 30% ice extent graph was dropped only a few days after I used it on this thread. At the time I expected someone to point out that the two types of graph were using different algorithms to detect ice, and that the ranges were different in length hence the averages and standard deviations would be incommensurate. But no one did.

Neven's blog article likewise did not address any of these factors, instead just treated them as equivalents.

I am actually waiting for someone from DMI to put forth a coherent explanation of the situation that will be defendable. Perhaps the whole thing is reasonable but perhaps not.


As far as taking Neven's skill at deciphering the complexities of Arctic ice...well let's go back to one of his more famous examples of statistics and graph making abilities.

An ice free Arctic even in winter by 2032!!!

Hahahahahahahahaha

Well, let us hope that he is completely wrong. However, when looking at the lows and highs from here, it doesn't look like he is that far off.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

 

[IanC]

here is Old Rocks graph-

Old rocks is saying that Neven's graph is not that far off.

therefore Old Rocks is saying that not only might the vast majority of the ice melt in summer, but that the Arctic region will warm so much that ice wont reform when the Arctic Sun goes down in Oct and stays away until the next spring! all in the next 20 years!

the stupidity is breathtaking. how can anyone talk themselves into believing such a stupid thing?

 

[Crick]

Because February is headed for zero as rapidly as Septemper. We all see the bias, but do you see any dependence of the TREND on month?

 

[IanC]

Because February is headed for zero as rapidly as Septemper. We all see the bias, but do you see any dependence of the TREND on month?

what do I see? I see idiots who will uncritically believe anything.

I dont believe anything unless it makes sense to ME. I dont take someone else's word on anything. Neven's graph was always junk, even the first day he put it up. before reality intruded and messed it up. a thinking person would immediately know that and laugh at the stupidity of it.

did you laugh or just say to yourself, "that looks about right".

hahahahaha

 

[Billy_Bob]

This mornings forecast discussion got into the falling arctic ice levels. Several of the scientists over at NSIDC were commenting on the pack ice (30% ice coverage of water) growth vs the edge ice (15% coverage of the water) which is what Old crock and others post here as evidence of CAGW.

One of the reasons the sea ice levels are going down is the winds are driving the ice into pack ice that is 10 meters deep. SO the ice loss is not happening and they are talking about how to correct for this.

The Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) recently stopped posting their 30% ice coverage (pack ice) as they were having trouble explaining the difference to lay persons who didn't understand. The High winds this year in the arctic have driven the ice into pack ice resulting in a lower surface area coverage.

Pack Ice has increased in the Arctic by 11% this year alone.. Just using one graph to say the arctic is melting is not only disingenuous but a lie to boot.

Here is the corrected 15% ice coverage graph from NSIDC



Even NCAR has updated their ice pack graphs..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Note the bottom of the screen capture...The algorithm was messed up..

 

[ScienceRocks]

I won't be surprised if February does the same thing for sea ice! This month has been one hot sob!

Of course the loserterians only care about how many guns they have and acting like a cow boy!

 

[Billy_Bob]

While I do not totally agree with this statement, I find it hilarious that it sent mamooth into yet another fit of poo flinging. The rhetoric of climate debate is even worse that that of American presidential politics.

Ian, given that you do nothing but scream insults at people now, you have no business projecting your own ugly nature on to rational people.

Now, instead of replying to your endless content-free insult posts in kind, I'll keep doing what upsets you the most, which is talk about the science.

Gross Deception About DMI’s “Missing Graph” | The Great White Con

Homewood, the author of your conspiracy theory, lied about it. There is no question about that. This is from his blog post:

"It must be pointed out that DMI has never stated that there is any problem with the 30% version, or reason to doubt it…"

This is what DMI said about the graph months before:

"The plot above replaces an earlier sea ice extent map, that was based on data with the coastal zones mapped out. The coastal map implied that the previous sea ice estimates were underestimated. The new plot displays the absolute sea ice extent. The old plot can still be viewed here <link> for a while."

That is, directly contrary to Homewood's claim, DMI flat out said the graph was a bad estimate, and removed it months ago.

Yet here you are claiming DMI was calling it perfect data up until a few days ago.

Ian, you've been parroting bullshit lies. You didn't know better before. Now you do, so you no longer have ignorance as an excuse.

Address that. Or just hurl insults and run back to your SafeSpace at WUWT, where reality isn't allowed in to torment you.

DMI did not say it was a bad estimate, They did say that lay persons did not understand what it represents, which is pack ice. the pack ice area (30% ice coverage) grew showing a +1 standard deviation which was at odds with the loss of open sea ice levels (15% ice coverage).

DMI is going to bring back its 30% graph soon after they correct the algorithms to bring them back into reality. The data is still available for those of us who can create graphing.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I won't be surprised if February does the same thing for sea ice! This month has been one hot sob!

Of course the loserterians only care about how many guns they have and acting like a cow boy!

OH poor baby... the algorithms have been corrected and we are back inside natural variation levels.. so sorry that your fear-mongering wont pan out for you...

 

[Old Rocks]

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordp...e_volume/PIOMAS.2sst.monthly.Current.v2.1.txt

Real information from real scientists, not message board pretenders.

 

[Crick]

This mornings forecast discussion got into the falling arctic ice levels. Several of the scientists over at NSIDC were commenting on the pack ice (30% ice coverage of water) growth vs the edge ice (15% coverage of the water) which is what Old crock and others post here as evidence of CAGW.

One of the reasons the sea ice levels are going down is the winds are driving the ice into pack ice that is 10 meters deep. SO the ice loss is not happening and they are talking about how to correct for this.

The Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) recently stopped posting their 30% ice coverage (pack ice) as they were having trouble explaining the difference to lay persons who didn't understand. The High winds this year in the arctic have driven the ice into pack ice resulting in a lower surface area coverage.

Pack Ice has increased in the Arctic by 11% this year alone.. Just using one graph to say the arctic is melting is not only disingenuous but a lie to boot.

View attachment 65128

Here is the corrected 15% ice coverage graph from NSIDC



Even NCAR has updated their ice pack graphs..

Good reason to use volume rather than extents.