Sea Ice Update February 17 2014 – Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Still 25% above normal

A quick update for sea ice extent:

  • Global Sea Ice is 93,000 sq km below the 1981-2010 mean.  That is 0.5% below “normal”
  • Antarctic Sea Ice is  706,000 sq km above the 1981-2010 mean. That is 25% above “normal”.  Antarctic Sea Ice Extent actually rose 38,000 sq km from day 46 to day 47. Minimum could be near.
  • Arctic Sea Ice is 799,000 sq km below the 1981-2010 mean.  That is 5.25% below “normal”.

Data here. Graphs below. Click for bigger.

Global_Sea_Ice_Extent_Zoomed_2014_Day_47_1981-2010 Antarctic_Sea_Ice_Extent_Zoomed_2014_Day_47_1981-2010 Arctic_Sea_Ice_Extent_Zoomed_2014_Day_47_1981-2010

86 Comments

  1. in rough terms, the “above” normals cancel out the “below” normals- within 15%, which is within tolerance of measurements of these types (mainly educated “estimates”).

    therefore, as a system, the globe seems fine!!

    Reply

    1. “Antarctic sea ice 25% above normal.” Remember, it’s SUMMER in Antarctica now. Strange, no? Global warming, climate change whatever you call it, it remains a HOAX.

      Reply

  2. But the inventor of the Internet said there would be no ice at the poles by this year, I know only a Fool Believe Al Gore

    Reply

  3. That’s not supposed to happen! I haven’t shrunk my carbon footprint yet. I’m sure this must be a mistake. After all, all those scientists and Al Gore just couldn’t be wrong about how mankind is destroying their own planet. Well, I think the only thing to do is to keep on putting coal mines out of business, shutting down coal fired generation plants, converting out food supply into inefficient fuel and wasting taxpayer money funding shoddy “green” industries so they can go under with a nice big bang.

    Stay the course, don’t give up the ship, stick to your guns, a stitch in time saves nine, a penny saved is a penny earned, life is hard, but it’s harder if you’re stupid. Words to live by! (sarc)

    Reply

    1. It depends. I use the 1981-2010 mean and it is half a percent lower. Some sites use 1979-2008 as the mean and they get a different result. I use Extent. Some sites use Area. So … it depends.

      I had it above normal 9 days ago. But it has dropped slightly.

      Reply

  4. Fake climate change, yet another violation of our rights. The gov’t constantly violates our rights.
    They violate the 1st Amendment by caging protesters and banning books like “America Deceived II”.
    They violate the 4th and 5th Amendment by allowing TSA to grope you.
    They violate the entire Constitution by starting undeclared wars.
    Impeach Obama.
    Last link of “America Deceived II” before it is completely banned:
    http://www.amazon.com/America-Deceived-II-Possession-interrogation/dp/1450257437

    Reply

  5. “Normal” is a misleading term. We have no idea what “normal” is.having only 200 years of data. I think 25% above the a 200 year average would be more like it.

    Reply

  6. MOAR sea ice is PROOF that it’s getting warmer, because everyone knows when you put ice in an oven, it gets colder!

    Reply

  7. There is a difference between “above normal” and “above average”. The statements made in the quick update for sea ice extent should say “above average” or “below average”. For data which has a Gaussian distribution, i.e., is distributed according to a “bell curve”, NORMAL is usually considered to be within average plus or minus 3 standard deviations. The data here seem to be roughly within 2 standard deviations from average. So the data IS normal.

    Reply

  8. The “Warmers” want to compare a single years results against a 20 year average? Is this a credible comparison?
    The Earth is going to do whatever it darn well pleases despite us lowly humans.

    Reply

  9. Ignorance is bliss … Antarctica, unlike the Arctic, is a land mass. Most of the Antarctic snow/ice lies on land and there is a constant flow of it off the land mass and into the sea. As temperatures warm on an annual seasonal cycle, there is a commensurate rise in the amount of the land-based snow/ice that is constantly being pushed off the land mass to become sea ice.
    As a result of global warming, much more than usual of the snow/ice is coming away from the land mass. Vast ice shelves that have been more or less stable for millenia are breaking up and breaking away from the continent.
    Therefore, increased sea ice is an indicator climate warming. Hope that helps.

    Reply

    1. Greenland, like Antarctica is a land mass …. I could go on but I don’t want to sound as silly as you.

      Antarctica is a desert. And it isn’t warming except in a tiny part of the Antarctic Peninsula and there is no evidence of more snow.

      I post graphs of real data. If you have snowfall data, please present it. But I doubt you do. You are just an excuse maker. And a bad one at that.

      “Snowfall amounts in Antarctica have not increased for the past 50 years, according to a new study.”

      http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060811-south-pole.html

      Reply

    2. So next year when the ice is closer to “normal,” we declare victory over global warming and start a bonfire and consume mass amounts of libations. Because we are saved from ourselves. Thanks for the insight. Perhaps the expanding universe next week. TTFN.

      Reply

    3. What happens if the ice theoretically continues to expand, until it begins to reach the Southern portions of the continents…is that even more global warming?
      I don’t know…do you realize how ridiculous you sound? Do you really believe what you’re saying, or are you just trying to say anything to justify your belief system? Up is down, and down is up…and ANYTHING that happens weather-wise, is man-made global warming. According to your theory, the Ice Ages were global warming.

      Reply

  10. Scientists usually look at facts. And when the facts don’t support the theory, the theory is discarded. Hopefully that will happen with the highly politicized “global warming” theory. This “global warming” fraud is not about climate change. It’s about redistributing wealth from the industrialized nations to the less industrialized nations. It’s also about power. The “global warming” hustlers want to transfer sovereignty from individual nations and give it to the UN. Even if “global warming” were true, and even if mankind was responsible, as unlikely as that is, their proposed cure is to stick their hands in your pockets.

    Reply

  11. Hey, does anyone know what ever happened to the global warming expidition’s ship which was stuck in the ice? I have been waiting to hear about it ever since the US sent it’s ice breaker to free it but I must have missed any news reports.

    Reply

  12. When it comes to climate measures, there is no ‘normal.’ If there were, the global warmerers could answer these two simple questions:

    What is the correct temperature for the planet?

    Over the history of measured and estimated temperatures, why has the planet only been at the correct temperature for such a small percent of the time?

    Reply

    1. Global warming …… the democrats skyjacking of the new millennium

      Just can’t keep the terrorists/crooks/democrats/obamabots away from stealing from us

      Reply

  13. There’s your climate change people. All the artic ice has moved to antartica. Buy your carbon credits now. Let’s make sure that doesn’t happen again. Hurry, time is running out.

    Reply

  14. The progressives appear to be in a hurry to start some sort of global environmental control over us because they see that the arguments they have been using are failing miserably in the face of contrary evidence. Creating fear of environmental disasters to control how we choose to live.

    Reply

  15. The politicians are playing a classic shell game. Whether or not human activity is causative for a consistently and objective measurable change in global climate, the military industrial complex is polluting (earth, water, air) and ripping through natural resources at an unprecedented rate. It won’t really matter if the (risen) oceans are dead and there’s nothing left to fight over but potable water. During a fundraiser for legless vets and homeless swans, the elite will be able to twerkle-tweet about some celebrity blowing tons of propellant pollutant into the atmosphere, so they can post a selfie – and won’t at be just ducky….

    The arguing over it will change nothing; as both sides deploy filters upon the arguments to steer public opinion and drive money their way.

    Take a good look, folks – We are BLOWING IT.

    Reply

  16. youtube: The IPCC Exposed

    By the Corbett report

    Many so called IPCC ‘top’ scientists are “still 10 years away from a PHD”.

    Who really are the hysteric alarmists?

    With now all the exposed fraudulent papers, illegally withholding data, admitted manipulated studies and admissions of scientists lying, perhaps the shrieking ‘Warmists’ are the real ‘Deniers’.

    youtube:

    The Great Global Warming Swindle Full Movie ” The club of Rome…

    Now Rothschilds bought a weather broadcasting network (gee, I wonder why??? DUH), Google it:

    EL Rothschild buys stake in Weather Central – FT.com

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/67ee5828-2d8d-11e0-8f53-00144feab49a.html

    Related:

    The ideological basis for ‘environmentalism’

    youtube:

    Exposed -WWF & Prince Philip – The World Wildlife Fund

    Published on Nov 23, 2013

    The RINOs and the democrats want to hand our taxes and law making over to the UN.

    The UN is ramming ‘Agenda 21’ and ‘Common Core’ down the throats of the world, the UN’s World Bank is complicit in forcing poor farmers off their own land in Africa and South America for corporate and university endowment ‘tree farm/carbon credit’ investments, is deeming sovereign resources off limits, trying to eliminate (citizen’s only) the right to bear arms, our country’s sovereignty and our individual freedoms and now trying to force a ‘world’ climate change tax and ‘world’ wealth tax on us AND under the guise of saving us from asteroids, the UN is NOW trying co-opt our US space program, it’s technology, resources and MORE OF OUR TAXES.

    We must start with voting the RINOs and democrats OUT 2014

    So now the UN noticed Bloomberg’s dictatorial impositions on New Yorkers and has appointed him to be bulldozer for the UN’s climate change world tax.

    Through imposed ignorance we are handing over our resources, funding (taxes), technology and sovereign decision making to basically an unelected, new monarchy (UN)made up of mostly 3rd world dictatorships who are just tools of a few dynastic families.

    … time to reduce federal to it’s constitutional mandate, defund regulatory down to our country’s essential needs, defund the IRS and the Department of Education, re-coup our state’s rights, take back federal land -our state’s property from the feds), time to take back control of our own waterways and national parks and de-fund the UN, kick them out of our country, claw back pensions and restitution of it’s assets.

    Vote out the RINOs and all left progressives.

    Reply

  17. The temps haven’t increase in 15 years! That is all that need be said to debunk this hysteria. Oh the chicken little’s will spout off about surface temps but never mind a percentage of these measuring device have things like parking lots and exhaust vents tainting their results.

    Reply

  18. I’m confused. We measure “normal” sea ice levels based upon 30 years? 30 years is meaningless in climate. We need to look at least 10,000 years to have any meaning at all.

    Reply

  19. Want a laugh? As one of these Warmists what the “correct” temperature for Earth is. I mean, they want to return us to the Stone Ages to stop global warming. Fine, what is their target? How will when know when we have arrived? Here’s a hint. They have no idea.

    Reply

  20. I heard a rumor that all the white ice fled to Antarctica because black ice was moving to the North Pole. Racism is causing climate change!

    Reply

  21. Oh NO! The poles are out of balance … and it’s getting worse! The planet’s going to flip around any tine now, and we’ll go flying off the edge of the earth. (I hope Algore doesn’t steal this emergency message and monetize it–I’m sincere!)

    Reply

  22. Sea ice extent or area is meaningless because of the effect the wind has on the numbers. Blow in one direction and the numbers go down or up. Blow in the other direction and the numbers go up or down. How do compare one set of numbers with; another set when the wind is causing the numbers to change depending on which way the wind blows. one million sq km of 0.5 meters thick sea ice pushed by the wind to form half a million sq Km of one meter sea ice makes the number go down but the ice didn’t melt, it just moved.

    Reply

  23. Hey knuckle heads if 98% of Scientists told you that eating a particular food was going to kill you would you listen to them or reply with non nonsensical “bumper sticker” slogans that Fox & Rush told you?

    98% of the world climate scientist are telling us we are endangering our descendants quality of life with our pollution. Do you not care because it doesn’t effect you directly?

    Reply

    1. Liar throbo. Maybe 98 percent of LIEBERALS believe in global warming. But where do you get your figure about scientists? Al Bore?

      Reply

  24. At some point the “climate change /global warming” crowd will not be able to sustain the hoax… thank God for facts/data!!

    Reply

  25. This article contradicts itself when it says the ice is 25 % above normal and still going up but ‘minimum could be near’. Huh? Don’t they mean MAXIMUM?

    Reply

    1. Each year around February, Antarctic Sea Ice reaches its lowest extent for the year. This year it is reaching MINIMUM, but that MINIMUM is still 25% above the 1981-2010 average.

      In September/October Antarctic Sea Ice Extent will reach its MAXIMUM. The MAXIMUM was a record in 2012 and again in 2013.

      Reply

  26. in what way is global warming a hoax, people? do you have any evidence to back this up? are you the same people that say that evolution is a hoax too? what seems more realistic, that 97% of all scientific articles written in the world agree with global warming 1) existing (the average temp is 2 degrees warmer than it was in 1950) and 2) humans having a major impact on it and 3) the trend will continue, OR, that it is all a hoax, and all those scientists have bad intentions to lie to us… exactly why would these scientists want to lie to us?

    Reply

  27. Your references are the “hockey schtick”? Oh, I should really listen to what they say? This is the problem.

    A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences analyzed “1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers”.

    The tenets of the ACC are what I posted previously (climate change exists, human contribute to it, and it will continue and cause a change in sea level).

    Just step back for a second. Read scientific articles from reputable sources, and listen to real scientists speak about it, not talking heads that don’t know what they are talking about. There is room for debate on global warming, but not really whether it exists. No real scientist disputes that. Some scientists dispute how much humans are contributing to it, and that is a fair argument, and also people are disputing how bad it will be in terms of sea level rises etc based on projections. But among people who are informed (not hockey schtick), that debate is done.

    There are real scientists you can find who will debate global warming – but what they debate is how much humans have contributed to it. Just because it has been a cold winter doesn’t mean global warming is a hoax. These scientists are not liberal or conservative, they care about the truth and so for you to say they are all lying just sounds like you’re a bit crazy. Why would all these scientists lie?

    Reply

    1. 1) Members of the NAS get to publish articles in PNAS without real peer review.

      2) Stephen Schneider was a co-author. His famous quote: “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

      2) Jacob Harold co-author: “At the beginning of his career he worked as a climate change campaigner for Rainforest Action Network and Greenpeace USA and as organizing director at Citizen Works.”

      3) James W Prall co-author is a Senior Systems Programmer. Not a climate scientist.

      Read this criticism:

      http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/comments-on-the-pnas-article-expert-credibility-in-climate-change-by-anderegg-et-al-2010/

      And this:

      http://news.sciencemag.org/2010/06/scientists-convinced-climate-consensus-more-prominent-opponents-says-paper

      “”This is a completely unconvincing analysis,” says climate expert Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology”

      Thanks for the big joke.

      Reply

  28. Like I said before, there are plenty of researchers who disagree about the CAUSE of global warming and how bad it will be. There are two prominent research climatologists that I know of, the one from GIT and one from MIT, who think global warming is being overdramatized and have been outspoken critics of the media and political coverage. But neither of those folks dispute that the earth is warming at a rapid pace.

    But you linked us to some BS article about where the 97% number comes from. In reality it comes from 1,300 researchers (97% of whom agreed with the three tenets of global warming), not your supposed survey of 29. That’s a sad attempt at having an adult discussion.

    Proving CAUSATION (humans are causing the warming) in research is extremely difficult, so what we are left with is level 5 evidence – which is basically just expert opinion. So the debate is really about whether humans are causing global warming, and whether it is drastically change our environment over the next 100 years. And as far as the scientists are concerned – people who rely on data, not opinion – 97% agree that humans cause it and the sea level rise will be significant enough to cause major problems in metropolitan areas.

    Anecdotal evidence like the record cold we’ve had these past few months doesn’t prove anything. Just the same way a record hot summer or a mild winter shouldn’t cause us to go scaring our children into reducing their carbon footprint at all costs.

    All this debate about global warming is good, we should have a healthy debate about it. The important thing is to ask what we can or should do about it, if anything. I don’t think it is productive to ignore the facts though and keep arguing that global warming is a myth.

    My point of engaging the message boards, which i know, especially when I’m linked from Drudge (and I’m a republican voter and a conservative myself), is a waste of time, was to just make it clear to you all that there is no hoax here. There are no lies. We are talking about scientists that have no agenda. They just want to help understand our world and where it is going.

    When you all try to poke holes in the fact that the earth is really warming and that just because there is a 25% increase in antarctic ice pack global warming is a “hoax” you sound like the same people that are still trying to prove that the earth is flat or that evolution is a myth.

    Reply

    1. It appears you have been duped.

      The original paper was from Doran 2009: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

      Here is the quote:

      “In our survey,
      the most specialized and knowledgeable
      respondents (with regard to climate
      change) are those who listed climate science
      as their area of expertise and who
      also have published more than 50% of
      their recent peer-reviewed
      papers on the
      subject of climate change (79 individuals
      in total). Of these specialists, 96.2%
      (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1
      and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question
      2.”

      Reply

      1. What exactly is your point, that in one study 3 of 79 experts said global warming doesn’t exist? I really wasn’t talking about this study, but fine, if your argument is that those 3 are right and the other 76 are wrong, good luck.

        I was referring to the 97% number in the review of 1,300 peer reviewed researchers. That is a far better study – it is not just a yes/no survey about people’s beliefs, it is data from actual research studies, performed by the national academy of the sciences – not a few grad students at UIC.

        But regardless, you haven’t addressed any of my other concerns or statements. Like why would these scientists want to lie? Why do you think it is a myth? I’d really like to understand it a bit better. Or maybe not.

      2. Well, only an idiot would think that all climate change is caused by CO2 only. How many of the 1,300 (or 76 out of 79) have an explanation for the 16 year pause that makes sense? How many can explain more sea ice in Antarctica? etc etc.

        But back to the 1,300:

        Convinced: “After removing duplicate names across these lists, we had a total of 903 names. ”

        Unconvinced: “. After removing duplicate names across these lists, we had a total of 472 names.”

        http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2010/06/07/1003187107.DCSupplemental/pnas.201003187SI.pdf

        903 out 1375 is not 97%.

        Your cult can’t do math.

      3. Your cult can’t do math.

        You have wasted our time claiming 97% of 1300 scientists all agree with the IPCC. Yet even that biased survey found 472 out of 1375 were unconvinced about mans role.

        You are now SPAM.

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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s