Today I’m coming out a day early and declaring July 2010 as the slowest melting July since the AMSR-E satellite record has been kept. The once ballyhooed “death spiral” is dead.
Reminds me of that line in Tarantino’s cult film Pulp Fiction:
“Who’s Zed?”
“Zed? Zed is dead.”
At the end of June I recall seeing lots of headlines in the newspapers about a record Arctic sea ice melt occurring. Words like “alarming” and “unprecedented” were used liberally. The reports were splashed with pictures of polar bears for added effect.
One month later the media are completely silent. As the following graphic shows, this July’s Arctic sea ice melt was the slowest since this dataset has been kept. Click Here.
Here are the numbers for the amount of July-melt in million square kilometers:
Year 6/30 to 7/30
2003 2.25
2004 2.08
2005 2.52
2006 2.11
2007 3.00
2008 2.45
2009 2.81
2010 1.85
It was the first time that July failed to reach 2 million sq. km. Now 2010 is on track to reach last year’s low. So far the Arctic has been cold this summer, one of the coldest summers north of 80°N on record, Click Here.
What’s the forecast?
Meteorologist Joe Bastardi projects a significant Arctic sea ice recovery in the couple of years ahead, flying in the face of predictions made by climate “scientists”. Bastardi’s claim is in line with the latest NOAA seasonal forecasts.
NWS/NCEP forecasts a cold Arctic in the months ahead.
La Nina is strengthening and global temps, dare I say, are beginning a death-spiral of their own.
Hi. I’ve been pointed to the fact that Sea Ice area doesn’t seem to be going as “good” as Sea Ice extent:
http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/6841/amsreseaicearea.png
Which of the two (extent – area) is more important/significant to determine “polar ice sheet health” ?
-PG: There’s a lot of discussion on measuring sea ice. Lately we here that area/extent is not so important – volume is what’s important. I think they’re both equally important. People keep worrying about albedo, so area is important. Then there are different ways of measuring. Some use 30% concenctration, some use 30% etc. I think you have to choose one and focus on the overall trend.
As you observed, each time it melts a little faster the newspapers are full of it; and when it melts slower, they don’t report it. This leads to the average person in Germany thinking that it’s melting, melting, melting. They think they know that the arctic ice becomes less and less and less. One of my colleagues had this impression; and he considered himself informed.
People really never look at the sea ice data, they only read the finely selected quotes in the newspapers – they are completely uninformed!
In other words, newspapers these days do NOT convey information; they DISTORT and destroy information, replacing it with disinformation. I don’t read them but i’m informed better because i look at the data on the web. The newspapers won’t even link to the available data.
That’s why they don’t serve a purpose anymore. Newspapers have become fiction. They will accordingly die.
Newspapers ARE dying.
I note that big red spot centered on New Mexico, but I’m laying in extra firewood for this winter anyway.
Yeah; anomalous big red spots are usually a sign of vigorous data fudging.
From 2001 through June 2010 the atmospheric CO2 increased by 20% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001 while the average global temperature has not increased significantly and the trend of yearly averages through 2009 is down. The El Nino that made early 2010 look a bit warmer than the trend, peaked in March, 2010 and average global temperature is now dropping rapidly.
Research, with latest findings regarding projected temperature trends is reported at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true. It presents a rational equation that accurately calculates the average global temperatures since 1895 with a coefficient of determination of 0.88. That means that it explains 88% of the measured temperatures for 114 years and counting. The best that GCMs have done is significantly less than this. The equation predicts that the trend of average global temperatures will be down. The above link and sub links, including links to the temperature data reported by the five reporting agencies, track the data back to the published credible sources.
As the atmospheric CO2 continues to increase and the average global temperature does not, perhaps the comments of ill-informed people will subside.
The average global temperature is not ‘dropping rapidly’ it is currently at a record high despite the EL Nino fading.
July 17th 2010 was THE hottest average global temperature since records began.
In fact the average global temperature is now exactly back on track with IPCC projections at .2C per decade.
This is despite a century low solar minimum which is ending.
Have a nice day.
Who’s numbers are you using?
Explain Antarctic ice.
Explain Arctic ice.
It hasn’t even started.
Graham,
Saying that the latest average global temperatures are the hottest on record is about as profound as saying that you drove 10,000 miles last year and the last 10 days were among the greatest distance traveled since the beginning of the year.
If you had checked, you would have discovered that it was reported (by one of the five agencies that report) to be only 0.02C warmer than the previous record (what is the uncertainty in their reported temperatures?). A reported temperature increase of only 0.02C in about a decade is actually reporting no significant increase.
So you are going to be surprised to discover that the average global temperature is still dropping steeply, that the average for 2010 will not be a record high in spite of the El Niño and the trend for at least the next 25 years will be down.