http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
It all depends on who you 'talk' to. I'm sure people like Jeff M will come up with a chart that says that the two dimension of the ice is expanding but the three dimension is shrinking, or something of the sort. You will have some say that it is shrinking, and that no amount of observations will prove otherwise.
However, in the overall perspective, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. It is temperature not ice that AGW is referring to. And I am referring whether it is diminishing or expansion. It is also a local condition not global. Also, the loss of ice or the gain of ice could be due to local weather conditions or reasons other than temperature. To equate the gaining of ice or the loss of ice to global warming is just nonsense.
For example, Mt. Kilimanjaro it was said was losing its snow due to Global Warming. In a nutshell, it was due to lack of precipitation, pure and simple. Same with the Himalayas. Although, there the scientists who claimed that, did later apologize.
It just further shows that the 'saviors of the earth' are walking on thin ice, when it comes to AGW.
No it's not. the reasons being that various ocean cycles and ocean currents can have effects on the year to year variation felt in the Arctic. I have read that' according to the science, Arctic sea ice decline is due to up to 50% ocean oscillations and currents and other natural phenomenon while the rest is due to the warming atmosphere. So while the Arctic sea ice may increase and decrease on a yearly basis this is just another one of those aspects where we have to weed out change due to natural variations and find the overall trend. you can't do that on one years worth of data.
http://www.climatedialogue.org/melting-o...
Of course this does not take into account ocean current changes due to changing salinity concentrations, regional warming, gravity loss due to glacial decrease, and other feedbacks in a warming atmosphere.
I would guess not.
The 2013 line is at the low end of the '81-'10 average, and the difference between that and the 2012 line is much, much less than the height of the fuzzy grey of the average (which is probably the approximate "statistically significant" line for that average). And, I haven't actually calculated it, but I'd guess that the '12/'13 average would be below that line, at least for late August. And we don't even have September yet. Aside from the "one year is weather, 30 years is climate" thing, of course.
Extent is a poor measurement of mass, given that the same mass of ice can read as a much larger or much smaller total extent depending on how bunched up any pack ice and the like is (very bunched up pack ice reads as a small extent, moderately spread out ice as a very large extent, extremely widespread pack ice reads as a small extent again.)
So, in all... I think this graph pretty clearly suggests that last year and this year show a decline in Arctic sea ice extent relative to the last several decades, and the slight relative uptick in no way suggests that Arctic ice has "started to recover" or whatever you're trying to hint at.
Deniers seem to have a lot in common with magicians, magic is the art of misdirection,
i.e. claim we are cooling by using a record warm year as your starting point, and hope nobody notices that the year in question (98) was lifted well above the effect AGW by a century high El Nino
or in the case here, claim ice is increasing by comparing this year to last year, but whatever you do don't mention that last year was the new record low (replacing 2007) of course post the graph of the last several years and the sham falls apart.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/...
It appears to be about 2 million sq. kilometers from the last point of your graph. Is that significant?
I depends what you are implying. It appears to be in the average of the time line mentioned. does it prove something? not really. But it may suggest that the arctic is not melting like some claim. At an accelerated unprecedented rate. Or Something which should cause serious concern among those who are in a position to understand and have been elevated with public funds to a position where they are meant to be trusted by extensive training at university to and apply the scientific method before alarming the public of serious problems that could be disastrous. Or where an error in reporting could be even more disastrous.
I don't believe so, although I have a feeling it might be the start of a come back.
What is interesting to me, is this has been a very cold Arctic summer, with lots of cloud and little sunshine, but still we have had substantial ice melt, makes me think that arctic ice melt is more to do with ocean currents and temperatures.
Edit
It is significant to 22 yachts trapped in the northwest passage
You must learn to break the code. All decreases are incontrovertible evidence of impending catastrophe. All increases are insignificant, and due to some other factor. See 'ad hoc hypothesis'.
It is if you're a climate skeptic. But then, they are used to confusing noise with signal so it's not really surprising.
Polar bears are getting the hell out of dodge and mating with brown bears further south. What more evidence that things are not right do you need?
Arctic ice; Is the relative increase significant?
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
