20 thoughts on “Global sea ice extent fluctuates but shows little change over 25 years”
If NH extent figures have been erroneous, as appears to be the case, based on the “adjustments” (using the bogus Jones method) at Cryosphere Today, it may well be possible that NH extent has not actually decreased as popularly depicted. Although there has likely been some decrease, it may not be as much as commonly advertised. This is the next swathe of fertile ground for auditing.
I would really like a link to the report that was taken from. The link in the graph doesn’t go there.
Why is it that climate science persists in showing “anomalies” by subtracting some arbitrary average value rather than the real data?
Is it possible that by doing so one observes little to no change at all?
To identify “IPCC errors” one need only to ask why this institution is unable or unwilling to explain the ‘explosion’ of winter temperatures in the Arctic in and since winter 1918/19 for two decades, see: www.arctic-warming.com. The first to wonder about this subject was B.J. Birkeland who stressed in his findings, back in 1930, that it could “probably be the greatest yet known on earth”. They are until today! This “big warming” occurred during the winter seasons when no sun was shining. What is further worth noting that current Arctic temperatures are not higher than after the period 1918-1940. As long as IPCC is ignoring this event it seems difficult to discuss their ‘conclusion in consensus’ seriously.
Thanks for those good points arnd. I had assumed ocean currents were likely candidates for the warming post WWI. I put a page up in 2000 on the warming in Isfjord Radio and there was not much support for the rapid warming. But the comparisons were not close.
I hope some of us get to look at what is on the arctic-warming URL.
Gidday Simone, Thanks for reminding me of our little paper from so long ago, possibly the most un-cited paper in history. John Daly put it online years ago at;
If you want a reprint or photocopy, email me your snail mail address to
sanur2007 AT warwickhughes.com
I must have a link to this paper somewhere on my site but just now can not find it. You have reminded me that there is a little story about how this paper came about.
Thanks a lot for this indication!!! 😉
«Thanks for reminding me of our little paper from so long ago, possibly the most un-cited paper in history»
😀 😀 😀
«You have reminded me that there is a little story about how this paper came about»
Can you tell our this story?
Good Sunday!
p.s.: I’m writing you at email address…
Reply to Comment 5;
The Norwegian scientist B.J. Birkeland, who to my knowledge, was the first to have published the extraordinary rise of air temperatures during the winter 1918/19 until 1926 (Meteorologische Zeitschrift, Juni 1930, p.234-236), noted that he had cross-checked with Prof Krogness, a former director of the Geophysical Institute at Tromsö, and A. Hoel, director of the Norwegian Spitsbergen Research Institute at that time, and that they had confirmed the correctness of the data series. On www.arctic-warming.com the circumstances are thoroughly discussed, indicating that the dramatic warming had started as a local event at Spitsbergen within a very short time period of few months, latest in winter 1918/19. In Annex B and Annex C of the reference website, the sea ice situation at Spitsbergen in the month April from 1910 to 1919 is shown in graphs, whereby all these years had been quite similar in the ice extent, except in April 1917/18 when sea ice reached the line between Bear Island and Jan Mayen.
NAVAL WARFARE caused arctic warming?!?!?
I just can’t get there…
Reply to Matt: Comment #10
It will indeed be difficulty “TO GET THERE”, if not reading the full text, ca. 35 typed pages, of the reference website: www.arctic-warming.com
By a step-by-step approach the analysis of the ‘climatic revolution’ (H.W. Ahlmann, 1946) establishes that the event commenced
(1) within a few months period in 1918, latest in January/February 1919, and
(2) at Spitsbergen.
This event was extraordinary, “probably be the greatest yet known on earth”, (B. J. Birkeland, 1930). Already in 1936, O.V. Johannsson, noted that between1917 and 1928 the increase during the summer season is of +0.9°C per 10 years, and in winter of +8.3°C, in February of +11.0°C. For personal checking, the Table of Spitsbergen Temperatures Deviation (B. J. Birkeland, 1930) is available at the reference website: Annex A
As such “dramatic event” (K.F. Drinkwater, 2006) has never been observed over the last 200 years twice, it seems not imprudent to ask: WHY? A highly possible aspirant is discussed on the reference website.
Note: It is not so difficult to find a first answer to: WHY, if one defines “Climate as the continuation of the oceans by other means”; see: Letter to NATURE, 1992, and other essays since 1992 on websites accessible via the reference website (right column: ‘Previous Essays). Once it has been acknowledged that only the sea could have triggered this event, considering a link between ‘human activities’ at sea prior the time period in question and the sea body at Spitsbergen could provide the concluding answer to: WHY did the sea at Spitsbergen made suddenly such a dramatic shift?
“Climate as the continuation of the oceans by other means”
I must remember that.
Here is why passive microwave is totally bogus. Firstly, it will get thrown off by surface ponds (e.g. pond which form on top of the ice, during “high” (relatively speaking, 65 degree sun angle, LOL!) summer, and will depict them as leads. This vastly reduces the reported areal extent. Secondly, it will get thrown off by the fact that as summer progresses, there will be lots of ice with the snow cover removed and a little with it still there, causing severe underporting of concentration. Thirdly, passive microwave cannot discriminate the true ice edge in all but a few cases (e.g. where there has been severe compression at the edge) and will underreport the bounding edge of the overall hemispheric mass of sea ice. In response to all these issues, there are “algorithms” used to attempt to “correct” these known flaws. Who has audited this code and who has QA’d it? Think of the movie “Entrapment” …. a little tweak here and a little tweak there and pretty soon you’re talking real money, or in this case, real area.
What is interesting about this 15 year old paper is that some of the issues discussed are intrinsic to the parardigm of using passive microwave as a means of trying to discern sea ice extent. Oh sure, there have been algorithms to attempt to correct for the known problems…. and if anyone needs are reminder…. GISS …… need I say more? “The algorithm killed the facts!”
Arctic sea ice extent appears to be another case like the Hockey Stick. Records using different methods grafted together. Overreliance on pulling a “signal” from noise, with huge opportunities to “produce” an expected result. It cries out for auditing. MM 2008?
Northwest Passage was sucessfully navigated over 100 years ago in a wooden ship with a crew of 7, as well as several times during WWII. The brief opening of the NWP during the summer is neither unusual nor unprecedented.
To be fair, Amundsen required multiple (either 2 or 3) seasons to make it through, and lived with Innuit during the ice-locked phases. On the other hand, the experiences during the early 40s are not a real surprise, given that the 1930s were warmer than even the 1990s. Due to the relationship between SST and ice extent, there will tend to be a delayed effect of a particular atmospheric warm period …. the current lack of ice is quite interesting, given where it sits with respect to the massive 1997 – 98 El Nino, minor ones bracketing it, and, the overall positive phase PDO from 1979 until, depending on which metrics you want to believe, sometime between late 1998 and present.
Steve, I attibute that to Amundsen using a slow, wooden boat with a crew of 7. Could he possibly do it in one shot? As we have seen this year, even in very low summer coverage, the opening is only there for a brief time. What was is this year? A few weeks, if that much? Could he have done it in that amount of time with the equiptment he had? I doubt it. Thus, he went as far as he could, camped for the winter, and resumed 11 months later. Point is, he made it through an ice free passage.
At Cryosphere Today, after a mid-month adjustment of record-levels leading to a pull-back, it looks like antarctic sea ice areas have reestablished record levels for the 79-present period. CT hasn’t acknowledged yet…
I have noticed you don’t monetize your website, don’t waste your traffic, you can earn additional bucks every month.
You can use the best adsense alternative for any type of website (they
approve all websites), for more details simply search in gooogle: boorfe’s
tips monetize your website
Leave a Reply
Primarily exposing faulty methodologies behind global temperature trend compilations
If NH extent figures have been erroneous, as appears to be the case, based on the “adjustments” (using the bogus Jones method) at Cryosphere Today, it may well be possible that NH extent has not actually decreased as popularly depicted. Although there has likely been some decrease, it may not be as much as commonly advertised. This is the next swathe of fertile ground for auditing.
I would really like a link to the report that was taken from. The link in the graph doesn’t go there.
Why is it that climate science persists in showing “anomalies” by subtracting some arbitrary average value rather than the real data?
Is it possible that by doing so one observes little to no change at all?
To identify “IPCC errors” one need only to ask why this institution is unable or unwilling to explain the ‘explosion’ of winter temperatures in the Arctic in and since winter 1918/19 for two decades, see: www.arctic-warming.com. The first to wonder about this subject was B.J. Birkeland who stressed in his findings, back in 1930, that it could “probably be the greatest yet known on earth”. They are until today! This “big warming” occurred during the winter seasons when no sun was shining. What is further worth noting that current Arctic temperatures are not higher than after the period 1918-1940. As long as IPCC is ignoring this event it seems difficult to discuss their ‘conclusion in consensus’ seriously.
Thanks for those good points arnd. I had assumed ocean currents were likely candidates for the warming post WWI. I put a page up in 2000 on the warming in Isfjord Radio and there was not much support for the rapid warming. But the comparisons were not close.
I hope some of us get to look at what is on the arctic-warming URL.
I Warwick, where I can find a copy of this your article?
www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/21952/ABSTRACT
Excuse me for O.T. in this discussion…
Gidday Simone, Thanks for reminding me of our little paper from so long ago, possibly the most un-cited paper in history.
John Daly put it online years ago at;
If you want a reprint or photocopy, email me your snail mail address to
sanur2007 AT warwickhughes.com
I must have a link to this paper somewhere on my site but just now can not find it. You have reminded me that there is a little story about how this paper came about.
Thanks a lot for this indication!!! 😉
«Thanks for reminding me of our little paper from so long ago, possibly the most un-cited paper in history»
😀 😀 😀
«You have reminded me that there is a little story about how this paper came about»
Can you tell our this story?
Good Sunday!
p.s.: I’m writing you at email address…
Reply to Comment 5;
The Norwegian scientist B.J. Birkeland, who to my knowledge, was the first to have published the extraordinary rise of air temperatures during the winter 1918/19 until 1926 (Meteorologische Zeitschrift, Juni 1930, p.234-236), noted that he had cross-checked with Prof Krogness, a former director of the Geophysical Institute at Tromsö, and A. Hoel, director of the Norwegian Spitsbergen Research Institute at that time, and that they had confirmed the correctness of the data series. On www.arctic-warming.com the circumstances are thoroughly discussed, indicating that the dramatic warming had started as a local event at Spitsbergen within a very short time period of few months, latest in winter 1918/19. In Annex B and Annex C of the reference website, the sea ice situation at Spitsbergen in the month April from 1910 to 1919 is shown in graphs, whereby all these years had been quite similar in the ice extent, except in April 1917/18 when sea ice reached the line between Bear Island and Jan Mayen.
NAVAL WARFARE caused arctic warming?!?!?
I just can’t get there…
Reply to Matt: Comment #10
It will indeed be difficulty “TO GET THERE”, if not reading the full text, ca. 35 typed pages, of the reference website: www.arctic-warming.com
By a step-by-step approach the analysis of the ‘climatic revolution’ (H.W. Ahlmann, 1946) establishes that the event commenced
(1) within a few months period in 1918, latest in January/February 1919, and
(2) at Spitsbergen.
This event was extraordinary, “probably be the greatest yet known on earth”, (B. J. Birkeland, 1930). Already in 1936, O.V. Johannsson, noted that between1917 and 1928 the increase during the summer season is of +0.9°C per 10 years, and in winter of +8.3°C, in February of +11.0°C. For personal checking, the Table of Spitsbergen Temperatures Deviation (B. J. Birkeland, 1930) is available at the reference website: Annex A
As such “dramatic event” (K.F. Drinkwater, 2006) has never been observed over the last 200 years twice, it seems not imprudent to ask: WHY? A highly possible aspirant is discussed on the reference website.
Note: It is not so difficult to find a first answer to: WHY, if one defines “Climate as the continuation of the oceans by other means”; see: Letter to NATURE, 1992, and other essays since 1992 on websites accessible via the reference website (right column: ‘Previous Essays). Once it has been acknowledged that only the sea could have triggered this event, considering a link between ‘human activities’ at sea prior the time period in question and the sea body at Spitsbergen could provide the concluding answer to: WHY did the sea at Spitsbergen made suddenly such a dramatic shift?
“Climate as the continuation of the oceans by other means”
I must remember that.
Here is why passive microwave is totally bogus. Firstly, it will get thrown off by surface ponds (e.g. pond which form on top of the ice, during “high” (relatively speaking, 65 degree sun angle, LOL!) summer, and will depict them as leads. This vastly reduces the reported areal extent. Secondly, it will get thrown off by the fact that as summer progresses, there will be lots of ice with the snow cover removed and a little with it still there, causing severe underporting of concentration. Thirdly, passive microwave cannot discriminate the true ice edge in all but a few cases (e.g. where there has been severe compression at the edge) and will underreport the bounding edge of the overall hemispheric mass of sea ice. In response to all these issues, there are “algorithms” used to attempt to “correct” these known flaws. Who has audited this code and who has QA’d it? Think of the movie “Entrapment” …. a little tweak here and a little tweak there and pretty soon you’re talking real money, or in this case, real area.
What is interesting about this 15 year old paper is that some of the issues discussed are intrinsic to the parardigm of using passive microwave as a means of trying to discern sea ice extent. Oh sure, there have been algorithms to attempt to correct for the known problems…. and if anyone needs are reminder…. GISS …… need I say more? “The algorithm killed the facts!”
ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19920015007_1992015007.pdf
Arctic sea ice extent appears to be another case like the Hockey Stick. Records using different methods grafted together. Overreliance on pulling a “signal” from noise, with huge opportunities to “produce” an expected result. It cries out for auditing. MM 2008?
Northwest Passage was sucessfully navigated over 100 years ago in a wooden ship with a crew of 7, as well as several times during WWII. The brief opening of the NWP during the summer is neither unusual nor unprecedented.
To be fair, Amundsen required multiple (either 2 or 3) seasons to make it through, and lived with Innuit during the ice-locked phases. On the other hand, the experiences during the early 40s are not a real surprise, given that the 1930s were warmer than even the 1990s. Due to the relationship between SST and ice extent, there will tend to be a delayed effect of a particular atmospheric warm period …. the current lack of ice is quite interesting, given where it sits with respect to the massive 1997 – 98 El Nino, minor ones bracketing it, and, the overall positive phase PDO from 1979 until, depending on which metrics you want to believe, sometime between late 1998 and present.
Steve, I attibute that to Amundsen using a slow, wooden boat with a crew of 7. Could he possibly do it in one shot? As we have seen this year, even in very low summer coverage, the opening is only there for a brief time. What was is this year? A few weeks, if that much? Could he have done it in that amount of time with the equiptment he had? I doubt it. Thus, he went as far as he could, camped for the winter, and resumed 11 months later. Point is, he made it through an ice free passage.
At Cryosphere Today, after a mid-month adjustment of record-levels leading to a pull-back, it looks like antarctic sea ice areas have reestablished record levels for the 79-present period. CT hasn’t acknowledged yet…
arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg
arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg
I have noticed you don’t monetize your website, don’t waste your traffic, you can earn additional bucks every month.
You can use the best adsense alternative for any type of website (they
approve all websites), for more details simply search in gooogle: boorfe’s
tips monetize your website