UPDATE 19 July: Steve Goddard has followed this post with a supplement, and provides more detailed information. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/18/sea-ice-news-14/
WUWT following up on my posts a day or two later seems to be becoming a trend over there.
The NOAA is taking the liberty of declaring 2010 the hottest ever, even though it’s only July! So what’s all the hurry? Well, you have to get them scary global-hotting headlines out while you can, and any way you can. When you’re desperate – you’re desperate.
They’ve seen their own forecasts for the rest of the year, and so they know it’s their last chance. Just check the leading climatic indicators on my homepage and you’ll see why.
Now on Arctic sea ice, allow me to use the same NOAA “scientific” method and declare that the Arctic has experienced the slowest July ice melt ever! (Well, at least so far).
Look at the ice melts from June 30 – July 15 for the following years, taken from AMSR-E.
Sea ice melt
Year 6/30 to 7/15 Daily rate
2002 1.126 million sq km 75,000 sq km / day
2003 1.014 67,000
2004 1.019 68,000
2005 1.152 77,000
2006 1.210 80,000
2007 1.742 116,000
2008 1.216 81,000
2009 1.413 94,000
2010 0.807 54,000
Never has ice melted so slowly in mid summer as it has this year. Indeed sea ice melt in July 2010 is less than half the melt rate in 2007. It’s far below anything we’ve seen on record. Would the NOAA already call it a record low melt for the month?
And as Lubos Motl pointed out 3 days ago here, total global sea ice is above normal. Also see here. Indeed sea ice is rebounding, and surprisingly just at a time when it’s supposively the “hottest ever”. Someone is wrong, obviously.
Do you think anyone in the media is going to run this story?
Arctic “gyres”, winds, seem to impact not only Arctic ice extent but thickness, though temperatures may remain seasonally stable. Could the current slow-melt accordingly be an artifact of atmospheric circulation patterns? But if so, how come these spiraling winds have been consistently declining for some years?
Satellite animations show color-coded Arctic temperatures in decline, but a 50% drop in melt-rates since 2007 needs examination in detail
The wind map I saw looked like a jumbled random pattern. Maybe that “local” mixing without major influx of southern air is the reason.
More cherry picking of information from a source as ‘big as yours’
I am sure you have more knowledge about sea ice in the arctic then the University of Colorado and NOAA- after all they are run by alarmists- right?
Lets try and not compare the thin relatively new ice- which melts quick- with the older thicker ice- the two naturally will melt at different rates.
As summer progresses, the ticker older ice will naturally melt with less ease.
Come September- when photographs will show us how far ice has retreated- if it is at 2007 levels or worse- how will you distort that information? But I am sure you will- with some anti government conspiracy theory.
Reply: Why the narrow cherry-picling focus on only the Arctic? We’re talking about global warming, and not Arctic warming. But whatever, the Arctic melt has slowed to a relative (record) crawl over the last three weeks or so. Look at total global sea ice. It’s above normal – meaning colder conditions at the poles, and not warmer. We’ll soon find out who’s right and who’s full of crap. See my latest post: Will 2010 Stay Hot? -PG
And Morton pointed out last April, record growth of Arctic ice in March accompanied NOAA reports of “the hottest March ever”.
Further, I analysed the temperature average for my own home grid in California (one degree celsius lower then ave for March) verses NOAA’s report (they claimed 2 degrees above average for March).
NOAA’s temp map is not to be trusted.
Ya think? Could they be “cooking” the books?
Color me shawked.
GLENDORA MIKE
Do an internet search for the USS Skipjack. In 1958 this nuclear sub surfaced at the North Pole. This class of submarines could break through up to three feet of ice. The crew had no problem pushing the ice off of the deck. They reported that ice was floating around on open water.
Wow, just wow. Just when I thought Global Warming advocates were bad, you take a minuscule portion of time and make futuristic calculations off the data. If you were to intemperate the graph properly, you would see a drastic loss in sea ice. The graph indicates that at the present time, the sea ice is at its lowest levels since 2007, and aside for 2007 the sea ice is at its lowest levels since 2002.
GLENDORAMIKE
Sorry, my bad. It was the USS Skate that surfaced at the North Pole, March 17, 1959. Google it and you can see pictures of the sub at the North Pole. There is a serious lack of ice.
Melt the lot, say I! Open the NW Passage! Pity the poor seals, who won’t be able to hide under ice from the polar bears. There’ll be a bear population explosion and hunting will have to be opened up again to keep them from ravaging the entire North!
What you did to pull such conclusion is called ”CHERRY PICKING” and it has no value.
With the same CSV file as you used for that false news, i’m able to calculate that from april 1st to july 19th , 2010 is by very far the year that had the biggest amount of melting compared to the same period from previous years :
April 1st to july 19th of every year – amount of Ice extent lost.
2003 5787031
2004 5171406
2005 5425781
2006 5430938
2007 6082500
2008 5904063
2009 5865781
2010 6628437
You see, when someone is cherry picking data you can make numbers say about anything. This article is exactly that, as i just done it. It has no value at all – as we have to look at the peaks and the lows to compare what’s going on with the Arctic sea ice extent and see a trend out of the yearly data, years after years – not two weeks or three months to declare a trend or an event.
Reply: That was precisely the point of my post. That’s what the NOAA and media did when declaring 2010 the hottest on record. It’s called picking the start and endpoints to get the result you want. I thought that message was clear for prople reading my post-PG
No that’s where you are misleading..
First it’s not NOAA, it’s the NSIDC. Second, the analysis was clearly stating it was about the three running months. And last, the specifically that it was not going to last.
NSIDC is always giving the three running months analysis to assess the current situation. But you twisted the news as being somethin opportunist from them.
You were the opportunist to come out with a twisted news, cherry picking data without even analysing the situation as an exceptionnal event. Who’s bias.
You’re luck was that WUWT pushed your news to the world as a fact when it was nothing more then junk – on purpose.
Reply: I used the first 15 days of July as an example of cherry-picking to show how easy it is to spin a story. If you read my post you would have seen that. Unfortunately many NASA institutes spin regularly, and thus are losing the confidence of those who fund them. -PG.
Further, the NSIDC never claimed it was a trend – they stated the current situation for those three months. You make it sound as if they were saying it was the trend.
Reply: Well they ought to be more careful with their press releases. The media made it sound like the end of the world. -PG
This site says the thin ice has already gone and the thicker remaining ice is taking longer to melt.
http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/98789_junes_arctic_sea_ice_melt_fastest_in_30_years/
Reply: July’s melt is probably one of the slowest in 30 years. That’s why it’s nonsense to look at only one month – unless of course you’re a journalist who’s desperate for a headline. -PG