Sea Ice Extent – Day 363 – Highest Global Sea Ice and Highest Antarctic Sea Ice For The Day


DataSouth / North

Global Sea Ice Extent for Day 363 From 1978 (infilled) Global_Sea_Ice_Extent_2014_Day_363_1981-2010 Global_Sea_Ice_Extent_Zoomed_2014_Day_363_1981-2010 Antarctic_Sea_Ice_Extent_2014_Day_363_1981-2010 Antarctic_Sea_Ice_Extent_Zoomed_2014_Day_363_1981-2010 Arctic_Sea_Ice_Extent_2014_Day_363_1981-2010 Arctic_Sea_Ice_Extent_Zoomed_2014_Day_363_1981-2010

59 thoughts on “Sea Ice Extent – Day 363 – Highest Global Sea Ice and Highest Antarctic Sea Ice For The Day

  1. you can’t win with the warmers. I told a so called scientist friend of mine that ice caps were actually growing according to a report I read and he yes but the ice is not as thick. Ugh. It’s pure disinformation from folks who earn a living from pushing global warming.. oh sorry I meant climate change.

    1. Agreed….and it won’t be long before the moniker changes yet again. The kicker is that this is the same crowd that was warning of the next impending Ice Age back in the 1970s.

  2. Blog Owner Note: The following comments says “the Antarctic ice is primarily land-based”

    Not true. The ice edge is sometimes 1500km from land. It is not “land based”.

    As for two different datasets. They both measure sea ice extent. Same thing.

    The original post is below and to be fair I’ll post it.

    “Highest Global Sea Ice and Highest Antarctic Sea Ice For The Day”. This article obfuscates what’s going on. The author is adding data from two completely independent parts of the world whose year-to-year ice patterns depend on utterly different phenomena. For one thing, the Antarctic ice is primarily land-based and depends on complex interactions of land ice, sea ice and currents in the area. The Arctic data is of sea ice only. Data include satellite measurements of sea ice “extent” (a measure of area) as well as sea ice volume (PIOMAS), which includes the effects of thinning ice not visible in the extent data. Both Arctic data series show *clear* decreases of sea ice for the past 35 years, whether you measure yearly average, yearly minimum or yearly maximum.

    The headline of “record” for a single day also ignores the rest of the days of the year where it is far from that. But the main problem is that adding two utterly different datasets (with the same weighting, no less) to make a “global” series is meaningless.

    1. Don’t be a doofus, the graphs showing ALL DATA since it began being kept show we’re still in the “normal range” of variance. “Settle down, Francis.”

  3. i thought those poor polar bears and penguins were floating around on little floes of ice due to climate change. another bull prophecy from the loons at the un climate panel!

  4. Re: The “ice is not as thick”. When you take the gigatons of ice lost in Antarctica, and then divide that by the surface area of the continent, you get 1/2″ of ice loss on the entire continent. It is absurd to assume that satellites can accurately measure that amount of ice loss.

    1. It will thicken further this winter, and the annualized Arctic sea ice average thickness has increased slightly this year (+17 cm this November, compared to last November). But the thickness fluctuates from year to year and has shown such increases in the past (1998, and 1984-85), but I don’t know of a single scientists who thinks Arctic sea ice is going to recover. The only question I ever hear is, how long until it disappears?

    1. Whether or not the ice is thicker or thinner is somewhat irrelevant. The greater extent of sea ice, even if it is thinner, is indicative of something, and that something was not predicted by the global climate models (the models predicted a reduction in sea ice coverage) that are used to predict the alleged dire consequences of AGW. This is another demonstration of the inadequacies of the climate models, caused by our lack of a comprehensive understanding of climate dynamics, preventing us from making accurate predictions.



    1. You are absolutely correct.
      We need more CO2 because from CO2 comes O2 which all mammals need to breath and live.
      And the more CO2 the better the trees and plants grow – and of course, the more oxygen they throw back into the atmosphere.

  6. Let me reiterate the main problems that I see with this report. Adding sea ice data from two different parts of the world is a meaningless exercise when the processes melting and freezing the ice in each region are completely different. The amount of sea ice in the Antarctic region depends on a complex interaction of the sea currents and the *enormously larger* land-based ice on the Antarctic continent. So you have to study the two together.

    A second problem is looking at 365 days of the year in a noisy data record and picking the one that fulfills one’s biases. There is nothing special about the day 363. In fact, looking at the same graph I see dozens of days in 2011 and 2012 where the Antarctic ice is the *lowest* on record for those days. The first days of 2008 are the *highest* on record for those days. The climate is not changing much during this period. None of this is meaningful because the data is inherently noisy.

    1. “Adding sea ice data from two different parts of the world”

      More than two. The Arctic is made up of dozens of regions, each with a different relationship to the land. Yet they add all those up and come up with a single number.

      1. There is nothing wrong with this. The article is merely presenting data, it is not comparing the datasets. Each dataset presents its own comparisons over time for its region. It is this data comparison that is important to the argument over climate change. You could present one region’s datasets in one article, and the other region’s data sets in another article, and you’d be presenting the same data. This article merely presents all the data in one location. Nothing wrong with that.

      2. Dave: Yes, there is something wrong with this — the implication is that the physics/climatology is the same at both poles. It isn’t, as the two regions have very different climatology…. It’s like saying net US wealth has increased this year Bill Gates made $55 B, and everyone else lost $50 B this year. Such a statement doesn’t begin to capture the story of what’s going on….

        Climate contrarians know the physics isn’t the same at both poles, but they think they have a ‘clever’ argument (by summing SIE changes) that the public won’t notice, and they will be left with the wrong impression (that there is no AGW)..

  7. All us lay people are left to view this with nothing more than common sense. No, i do not have a meteorological degree. i don’t walk ‘hallowed halls’. I just read a lot and some things jump out at me. Like – how is it that not one of the “gloabl warming’ advocate scientists has a single degree of tolerance for the opposing view? Why do they lie about their data. Why do they destroy their data. Why do they lie with their e-mails? Why do they take current temps and then substitute their models temps in place of real temps. Why do they tell me ice is disappearing when it is at record highs. Why are they now calling it global “climate change”?

    i add up the intolerance, the “settled’ nature of science and i see a major fraud. If all these people weren’t getting grants. weren’t part of the political left that hates fossil fuels and the oil and coal industry – maybe we could give and take on some of this.

    But when you add all the lies – sorry.sorry. The worlds climate vacillates. It has for 4 billion years. Asking me to accept some data set created using temps from 1830 as the basis for all time – and to destroy our way of life by crushing coal and oil and gas –

    Sorry – all you grant spenders need to find something else to pay for your wonderful academic lifestyle. As for me – i hope it warms up. i prefer the beach to blizzards. And my garden produces better too.

      1. That’s rather easy to do. Simply search out the “Climategate” emails and there is your evidence of providing false information, tampering with the data and so forth. That all amounts to a lie.

        I have researched a lot on this subject and for the basic reasons noted by Mark, concur with him. I realize that you may next ask me to provide links to back this up. As I have spent many hours of research (both pro and con AGW), why don’t you spend a some hours and investigate for yourself what the scientists did with the data and what they were attempting to hide and accomplish as it relates to the “Climategate” scandal. I have better things to do with my time than to waste it on people that refuse to use some common sense or spend time researching something they simply want to ignore or do not agree with. And then after they discover the truth, still refuse to accept the facts for what they are. Not stating that you are that type, but for the most part, that is what I encounter.

        As was noted earlier in the comments, “follow the money”.

  8. All you need to know. Al Gore swore, that both poles would be ice free unless we sent all of our money to him.

    I believe they he promises that both poles would be ice free by 2013. Have we been had again?

  9. Get ready to panick. If the Global Warmist are wrong, we are in a world of hurt. While we are destroying our economies for these people, Global Cooling will kill hundreds of millions of people. We will have no way to feed them

  10. We are going into an ice age! Will it be a blip or a deep one with another glacier covering America down to St. Louis like the last one?

    Google “Two Minute Conservative” for truth.

      1. Thanks for posting the links to the original data. This is what my associates are going to ask for when I bombard them with the truth.

  11. Given an organism in an environment one can state that the most adaptive will, by definition, be the most likely to survive. In order to adapt to an environment, an organism must understand it. One could say that the ability to understand ones environment is perhaps the best measure of intelligence that exists. As far as evolution is concerned it is the only measure that counts. Being able to do math and calculate a trajectory does not count, but being able to dodge a predator definitely does count. If two organisms share about the same abilities to react to a given situation then the organism that can read the situation the most accurately is the one most likely to survive.

    Now consider Global warming. A search of the internet will quickly demonstrate that the vast majority of species on the planet are moving to the poles, or are moving, if they can, to higher elevations. In addition to that, the timing of migration patterns are changing. If this data is not accurate then not only are all climate scientists part of this climate gate conspiracy, but so are all botanists, ethologists, marine biologists, and microbiologists, entomologists and probably some others. So there is the first bit of information: If you do not believe that the climate is warming on a global scale then in terms of evolution you are less knowledgeable about your environment (less intelligent) then the great majority of animals, plants, insects, and even ocean dwelling single celled organisms like plankton. Yep, you are dumber than a plant or an insect.

    The pattern of GW denial sort of follows that of, and is similar to the arguments used to deny the correlation between smoking and cancer and a host of other diseases. You had actual scientists looking at the best available evidence on one side, and then you had paid charlatans with degrees in science working for corporations whose interests were threatened on the other. That was not 100% mind you, but it was pretty much how the advocates of the two positions lined up. A prime example is Dr. Frederick Seitz who sold out to become a spokesman for big tobacco and tried to convince people that tobacco was harmless. Later, after, at least according to many who were close to him, he became senile, he sold out to climate deniers.

    Now in this case on one side we have not only actual scientists doing their best to explain available information in light of best understood implications of thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, black body radiation etc. but you have almost all other life forms on the planet. By other forms of life, I mean almost every entity on the planet living in all but the most extreme areas.

    Now if we accept GW, the next question is: what causes it? Trust me, it is not the sun which for the past 50 years has remained fairly constant or produced less radiation over that time while temperatures have risen. It has not changed much in the past 2000 years. Neither has known cosmic ray counts. This leaves galactic unicorn farts and CO2. We know about CO2, and how it would work, and the most likely results. We have no evidence of unicorn farts, but we do know about bloviation sources from hot air producers.

    Another red herring from AGW people are the failure of computer models and the testability of theories. If the prediction of a theory fails then the theory is false. Well folks, then I guess that the germ theory of disease is false. Clearly, many people exposed to “so called germs” never get sick. On the other hand people get sick who have never been exposed to these “so called germs” But wait, they are not really germs, they are viruses. See — those scientists keep changing their story. Because they are in the pay of big pharma who just want to sell us drugs to make us sick so that they can make us more sick. And space that is another hoax. You know that the sun goes around the earth, just go outside and look for yourself. What? You believe the so called scientists?

    And speaking of hot air producers. This is a standard equation in statistics, the Gaussian integral. If you can not follow the proof, then you do not have a basic understanding of one of the most basic equations in statistics, which means that you do not understand statistics, which means that you are as competent to argue a point of view on AGW as you are to advocate competing forms of cancer treatment without ever having had a course in biology.

    Another measure of the incompetence of an AGW deiner is that I doubt that one in a hundred would be aware that there is a difference between random and chaotic, and I doubt that one in 1000 would know the difference, or understand it if it were explained to them. Again: few in the AGW camp know any math beyond advanced algebra.

    But since AGW deniers acutely suffer from Dunning-Kruger effect:, they will continue to bloviate.

    1. You present a false dichotomy. No one denies that the world is warmer than it used to be, and that species are moving north and upward. Well, there might be some dudes down in Louisiana somewhere that denies this, but most are in agreement about this. Most “deniers” don’t even deny any facts about Global Warming, nor even the one that the earth is 2.5C warmer than it would be if the atmosphere had no CO2. The crux of the debate lies with whether or not the effects of human emissions will cause catastrophic effects. Most of the “evidence” used to show this is the case is speculative and anecdotal.

  12. I am not a Scientist or meteorologist, I am simple a sailor, farmer, gardener, observer, etc….I have never seen or heard of so much phony crap about the climate has any of the so called experts considered that the thermometers they are using are, I believe, at or around airports and in cities, Black top, asphalt, bricks and concrete absorb the heat rays from the sun, now it seems to me that a simple logical answer to the rise in temperature is simple that the cities have grown, the airport runways have expanded and many new asphalt highways added and widened, they all soak up the sun rays and emit heat throughout the day and night, Have any of these thermometers been relocated the forests or farm land away from the bricks and concrete, I doubt it. Well so much for my unscientific high school drop out common sense observations.

  13. I would also like to add to ne 26. above that I never saw any scientist include the underseas volcanoes which emit possible up to 2000 degrees of heat in the so called ring of fire that circles around the pacific and reaches the far north, arctic? And pease excuse my sentence construction on 26. and the grammer, I did not do to well with English courses in school, but, I believe I have a lot of common sense and experience over the my 70 plus years.

    1. Challenge:
      1) estimate how much heat is given off by undersea volcanoes.
      2) calculate the ocean’s resulting change in temperature, according to the heat capacity equation dQ=mc dT

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 )

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