Is the Arctic Sea Ice in Retreat?
UPDATE : Its been a year now since I posted this article and felt it was time update a little bit. Here is the latest graph from IARC-JAXA:
April 29th 2011
Back in January of this year, it was very noticeable that many writers chose to no longer wait till minimum ice extent data in September, and chose to inundate many readers about how Arctic Sea Ice was at its lowest for December. That was very poor commentary, even for the ‘hot-heads’.
The measurement of annual Arctic Sea Ice , for good or bad, has always come at minimum ice extent in September. It is upon many predictions, that Co2 will create ice-free summers in the Arctic in the not so distant future.
When sea ice extent didn’t reach the milestone year of 2007, the hot-heads have had to alarm the media in other ways. Stories about thinning multi-year ice, increased concentrations of Co2, methane, and cherry-picking data has become the norm.
The alarmist suggests, that though the Arctic Ice hasn’t fallen below 2007, that it is just a matter of time. The alarmist will emphatically tell you that man-made Co2 will eventually create enough heat to end all of the debate over CAGW( Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming).
The mantra in the media is hype every weather occurrence as man-made.
Be it glaciers, the Arctic, floods, drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, whatever. It’s pathetic to see such desperation, from so many people, to convince themselves and others, that YOU are to blame, for EVERYTHING.
The facts no longer matter. Its your belief that matters now.
The alarmist wants us all to just believe. The alarmist wants us to disregard any theory.
Because any theory or fact that sheds doubt over our blame, is untrue, unproven, political incorrect, and conspiratorial.
The alarmist want to shame you into belief. The alarmist wants to control what you think.
The media inundates us with news on, ‘How to talk to a skeptic’, ‘Its worse than expected’, ‘We’ve gone beyond the tipping point’, It’s our children that will suffer’, ‘The fossil fuel industry is only protecting it’s interests’. So on and so forth.
The only thing in retreat is common sense from those that would have you believe YOU caused all this.
Anyways, come check back by here in September, and lets see if there is anything worth feeling alarmed about.
It has been, with some interest, that I have been following the science news
on Arctic sea ice. I first heard about the possibility that the Arctic being
completely free of ice back in the summer of ’08. Since that time, and many
times thereafter, I’ve kept watch on most of the news surrounding it.
Rather than attempt to give a summary of what I’ve learned, I think I would
rather display a couple graphs as to what we know about Arctic sea ice.
In the above graph, the data compiled here is from IARC-JAXA, a Japanese Aerospace Company based in Alaska. This is a daily updated graphic image of Arctic sea ice extent. The data has been updated daily since June of 2002.
In this graph, the data you see here is presented by the NSIDC and supported by NASA. It also is a daily updated graphic image of the Arctic sea ice extent. This data has been updated daily since 1979.
What can we learn about Arctic sea ice from these two examples ? Or more importantly, what can we learn about the companies themselves and how they want to represent the data they have in their possession? I think we can learn plenty.
In the graph from IARC, we have a running annual anomaly since 2002. We can clearly see each years rise and fall of arctic sea ice. In the graph from NSIDC, we have a graph that is displaying daily updates with misleading averages as a backdrop to view the anomaly.
You will notice that NSIDC only displays the months Dec-Apr, and only shows averages for ’79-’00, ’06-’07, and ’09-’10. NSIDC has omitted 7 years of data from their graph.
Looking at the NSIDC graph, one could surmise that this years arctic sea ice is somewhat below the norm of ’79-’00 and somewhat above the ’07 sea ice extent. Just based on a cursory view of this presented data, one can say that this years arctic sea ice is below normal and could suggest lower than normal sea ice extent for the rest of the year. If they had included the data for the omitted 7 years, it would more than likely make this graph worthless. The addition of more data from the omitted years would have lowered the ’79-’00 average considerably. Something else that bothers me about this graph is that it only presents 5 months of averages. It will be interesting to see how NASA presents their data for the upcoming summer months.
But this much I get. NSIDC apparently wants us to believe that this years sea ice extent is below normal and will continue to do so. That is their agenda. Why else omit other annual data that could possibly alter the state of the graph. I don’t like to be misled, and I get the impression that NASA knows no other tactic than the misdirection of data.
IARC on the other hand only presents the data as a whole. No compiled averages of preceding years. No omitted years from their graph. Just simply a running tally of each years progression of the sea ice as data. Nothing misleading with their graph. Just the facts. I like facts.
The graph from IARC, though only covering a period of 9 years, shows no average anomalies, just a running tally. But if one was to surmise anything from their graph, this years sea ice extent shows no abnormality and seems to be on average or even slightly above average for this time of year.
So, is the Arctic sea ice in retreat? I suppose it depends on where you go to get your information.
If you like cherry-picked data, omitted data, misleading data, head on over to your nearest NASA affiliate. They will gladly share with you what they want you to know.
Or go visit a site that shows all the data, without any flesh pedaling and glad handling , that will provide you the information to help make an educated decision as to the state of sea ice extent.
That is all.