Global Sea Ice is inside the one standard deviation mark.
Antarctic Sea Ice is approaching the above one standard mean mark.
I’m pretty sure Arctic Sea Ice no longer has any chance of changing the maximum for 2016 and therefore will set the record for lowest maximum (NSIDC) by about 20,000 sq km (MASIE disagrees).
There have been many online articles predicting Arctic Sea Ice doom in the last week.
My favorite quote is: “Scientists warn that the area covered by this winter’s Arctic sea ice could turn out to be the lowest ever measured.”
Total nonsense. In fact, as of day 83 Arctic Sea Ice extent is higher than it was in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2011 and 2015.
The record that may be set (maybe not since there is still a week or so to go before day 90 which is the latest maximum) is lowest maximum.
The record may be broken by 20,000 sq km. Out of 14,000,000 sq km. 0.14%
And MASIE (a different method) has 2016’s maximum 400,000 sq km HIGHER than 2006. (MASIE only goes back to 2006)
| Year | Min | Max | day of Max | day of Min |
| 2012 | 3368882.08 | 15821891.32 | 82 | 264 |
| 2008 | 4223400.12 | 15661926.25 | 72 | 265 |
| 2014 | 5066134.38 | 15523208.18 | 73 | 262 |
| 2013 | 4677324.53 | 15505010.03 | 73 | 260 |
| 2010 | 4716943.6 | 15,396,877.99 | 77 | 266 |
| 2009 | 4871392.35 | 15,326,130.68 | 62 | 254 |
| 2011 | 4302977.96 | 15,110,021.96 | 67 | 257 |
| 2016 | 13095244.88 | 15,077,599.37 | 61 | |
| 2015 | 4442258.23 | 14,910,198.98 | 62 | 260 |
| 2007 | 3986945.93 | 14,907,125.15 | 73 | 261 |
| 2006 | 5640540.95 | 14,663,037.37 | 69 | 267 |
NSIDC/NOAA data graph.
I’m sure the shredders will work overtime, but Greenpeace could be in trouble.
“Any day now a Canadian court could force the radical environmental group Greenpeace to open up its records world-wide to scrutiny from attorneys for Resolute Forest Products. The progressive green bullies may have picked on the wrong business.
Standard operating procedure for many companies faced with a protest campaign is to write a check and hope it goes away. But not at Montreal-based Resolute. CEO Richard Garneau tells us, “If you believe you’re on firm ground, you stand firm.”
In 2012 Greenpeace claimed that Resolute was violating forestry practices that the company had agreed to follow. Resolute threatened legal action and so Greenpeace retracted its claims. But Resolute says that even after the retraction the environmental outfit kept publishing and broadcasting the same false claims, along with some new ones. According to the company, one Greenpeace tactic is to show video footage of trees damaged by an insect outbreak hundreds of miles away but pretend it is the forest harvested by Resolute. Greenpeace denies this.
In 2013 Resolute sued Greenpeace for “defamation, malicious falsehood and intentional interference with economic relations” and sought $7 million Canadian in damages. The company has clearly been harmed by Greenpeace’s fact-challenged denunciations of logging in Canada’s vast boreal forest. As a result of the green media campaign, Resolute says it has lost U.S. customers including Best Buy. Greenpeace says in its court filings that its publications on Resolute “present fair comment based on true facts” and that the company is “engaged in destructive forest operations.”
But Greenpeace may be forced to defend those comments. In January 2015 an Ontario court refused to consider an appeal of its motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Then last June Superior Court Justice F. B. Fitzpatrick rejected Greenpeace’s motion to strike part of the Resolute complaint that details the environmental group’s activities around the world.
It’s a greatest hits collection of green distortions. One paragraph reads: “In 2006, Greenpeace USA mistakenly issued a press release stating ‘In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world’s worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]’.”
[…] Greenpeace has tried to contain the Resolute case and ensure it only affects its Canadian operations, but Justice Fitzpatrick wisely understood that it is one global organization. Now the Divisional Court in Ontario is considering the issue and if Greenpeace loses again, the outfit could soon be coughing up the internal documents behind its various campaigns of fear and intimidation world-wide.”
sunshine hours 