According to the University of Illinois, the area of Arctic sea ice has increased by the size of Texas and Oklahoma combined, since the same date in 2007.
US Road Map | United States Highway Maps
According to NORSEX, the extent of Arctic sea ice has increased by almost twice that amount.
NSIDC told the Arctic that it was supposed to start melting more than two weeks ago, but the belligerent Arctic has refused to listen and is now back to the 1979-2006 mean.
Alarmists will continue to lie about this until the ice covers Chicago, and then they will say that it is exactly what they expected.
texas oklahoma map, texas oklahoma on a map
Isn’t it amazing that not one of the plotted years is included in the meaningless mean!
No offense Steven, because I know you are just posting their info, but that is about the most dishonest representation of climate data around. A true mean would include all available comparable data, anything less is deceiving. It’s like comparing winter and summer temperatures, because as we all know that the poles and oceans et al have cycles too.
Gator-
I’m afraid you can’t see the woods on account of the trees. What does the mean have to do with the graph that shows the sea ice extent greater than anytime in the past 6 years, except for a little bump in 2010 where it is even.
It’s dishonest to continually say that the ice is melting.
Hey James! You missed my point. The meaningless mean is meaningless because they do not include ALL of the data. If they did, it would clearly show that Arctic ice is rebounding. I know very well that the Arctic is in no danger of a meltdown and that there is more ice now than the average of the last 9000 years.
I have contacted the NSIDC and lodged a complaint, to which I received this reply…
“Peter Gibbons, Mar 05 16:55 (MST):
Dear Colleague,
Thank you for contacting NSIDC and for your comment regarding the average that we present in our online publications. We are actively considering an extended average period for the graph in question and your comment will provide useful input into our decision. We currently have online resources that explain how these averages were determined, which you may find useful. This description in the Frequently Asked Questions section of our Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis page describes the use of the 1979-2000 period:
http://nsidc.org/asina/faq.html#1979average
You can find additional answers to common questions at the beginning of that page or directly with this link:
http://nsidc.org/asina/faq.html
Additionally, our Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis entry from January 2012 shows a plotted line for the 1981-2010 average in addition to the 1979-2000 average that is typically used. This graph is under the “2011 year in review” section of that entry. You can see that entry and the new graph at the following link:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/01/
Please let us know if you have any additional questions.
Best regards,
NSIDC User Services”
Ice melts, big deal.
Ditto what James said. The graph only uses the mean as a comparison point for recent sea ice extent. In doing so, it clearly refutes the alarmist dogma that the Arctic ice is melting.
The meaningless mean, you mean?
There are multiple long term weather patterns that are known to effect the ice conditions in that region, actually multiple regions that are mistakenly grouped together as one region.
Without taking all the weather patterns into account the “Mean ibs meaningless. They do not even take the primary weather pattern into account, which is the AO, that is known to have an approximate 60 year period. A 20 year mean is a mere subset and therefore meaningless.
That brings up the issue of thinking any condition over 15% or even 30% coverage equals 100% is beyond science fiction and the improvements in resolution make the historic records obsolete.
Yes Gator what they try to show as the mean is less than meaningless, it boarders on outright fraud. DO NOT TRY THIS WITH YOUR TAXES, You will go to jail. In the business world it is called creative accounting. I think there are still people in jail for using similar methods in the financial markets. MADOFF!
Well said my friend.
I was just accosted with this Facebook nonsense…
http://www.facebook.com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame
Apparently it’s like the ‘knockout game’. You just do a driveby, score ‘points’, and go on your merry delusional way.
What rubes…
The mean is indeed meaningless, but it is the mean and graph developed by Hansen et al, to demonstrate their version of normal ice extent. It does seem rather arbitrary that it commences in 1979, the year of the highest ice extent measured by satellite data. A more accurate year would be 1974, the year satellite data first was available. But that would have altered the effect of the graph because the ice extent in 1974-1978was far more like the 2000-2010 period, with a graph inclusive of the same showing a mean significantly less. Further, the graph does not provide enough data to be verified. Hansen and NSIDC have been observed changing historical data via reinterpretation and hiding the fact in ‘homogenized’ packets such as the instant graph.
Under any circumstances all available graphs are based on a period that is too short. The PDO is a 60 year cycle and that is what the mean should be based upon. The data has not been accumulated as yet.
Hey Pat! That is exactly right. But even worse, they have data that they refuse to include, data that is probably the most precise yet. That is fraud.