Arctic Sea ice 2015

The NSIDC Big Lie Continues To Unravel | Real Science

 

I prefer NOAA or NASA which reported the story but without as much hype. They are actually are governmental organizations, not simply one that takes the logo of one that provides some funding.
NOAA Arctic Theme Page - A Comprehensive Arctic Resource
2015 Arctic Sea Ice Maximum Annual Extent Is Lowest On Record | NASA

It seems this was mainly an indication of 2014's weather but the temperature and percipitation record is probably a better indicator.

 

Concerning 'uncorking glaciers' we have this:

Published Online March 26 2015
Science DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa0940
Volume loss from Antarctic ice shelves is accelerating
Fernando S. Paolo1,*, Helen A. Fricker1, Laurie Padman2

Indicating significant increases during satellite observation era (not the first such)

Concerning whether all the agencies reporting polar-ice could be in cahoots and miss reporting, that would be an opportunity for a completely independent analysis of the images. Such a finding would be of great interest.

I have suggested the same for global air T records in the past, because the originals are available (not always for free). But nobody seems to have found the time. Sigh.

 

Arctic is not at record low maximum.The premise of this thread is BS.The maximum hasnt been reached yet this season.

Arctic Surge Continues | Real Science

 

I didn't realize Auatralia got that chilly??

 

"The total area of sea ice is the sum of First Year Ice (FYI), Multi Year Ice (MYI) and the area of ambiguous ice types, from the OSISAF ice type product. However, the total estimated ice area is underestimated due to unclassified coastal regions where mixed land/sea pixels confuse the applied ice type algorithm. The shown sea ice extent values are therefore recommended be used qualitatively in relation to ice extent values from other years shown in the figure. In late 2012 sea ice climatology and anomaly data will be available here. "
Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

 

Your plot is a day older than mine.We will see.
Why they dont update the one you claim is more useful is a puzzle.

 

Well, that plot has now caught up, and I see. Mar 29 shows 14.421 Mkm^2, the same as Mar 28. The March high so far of 14.453 on the 26th is still below the 14.536 shown for Feb 25.

Another dataset, which NSIDC points to at sidads.colorado.edu, shows slightly different numbers on the different days, but the same overall pattern. Mar 29 shows 14.36, a bit below the March peak so far, which is below that February peak of 14.595 on the 22nd.

Now what?

 

Read post #2 it actually includes both plots absolute and no coast .Bobs post #9 "lie by omission"is pointless and meaningless.

Post #6 refers to an increase in the "no coast" plot.Perfectly valid as the absolute plot isnt up to date until the next day.Thats not a "lie by omission".

 

Mr. STFU writes:

Your 'Big Lie' post #2 and 'BS' post #6 were pointlessly harsh overreactions to a release saying:
"Arctic sea ice extent appeared to have reached its annual maximum extent, ... This year’s maximum extent not only occurred early; it is also the lowest in the satellite record. However, a late season surge in ice growth is still possible. NSIDC will post a detailed analysis of the 2014 to 2015 winter sea ice conditions in early April." [emphasis added]

The 'lie by omission' was for leaving out the plot with larger values and consistent with the OP article, about the March surge not surpassing the apparent February peak, not for the one day delay.
As for that delay, you said "We will see." Well, two days later, I now see - that chart shows the March surge appearing to end without surpassing Feb.

Your first link also leads to this disclaimer:
"The total sea ice extent can differ slightly from other sea ice extent estimates. Possible differences between this sea ice extent estimate and others are most likely caused by differences in algorithms and definitions.
Burrowing into the NSIDC's data links, I found that from their figures, this year's March surge did not catch up to the February peak, and has already turned down. (The larger DMI plot shows the same.) So by their particular algorithms and definitions, the apparent record in February still holds. Your strident 'BS' overreaction remains unnecessary.

Sorting through their historic satellite daily records, I extracted these annual peaks, sorted from low to high (sorry for the lousy formatting, this is in the form YYYY MM DD 10^6 sq km):
2015 2 22 14.595
2011 3 7 14.704
2006 3 11 14.777
2007 3 10 14.842
2005 3 9 14.993
2014 3 20 15.007
2009 3 2 15.195
2013 3 14 15.196
2004 3 10 15.3
2012 3 18 15.307
2010 3 31 15.351
2008 2 27 15.354
1995 3 31 15.384
1996 2 21 15.484
2000 3 3 15.498
1992 3 12 15.576
2002 3 9 15.624
1999 3 30 15.627
2003 3 20 15.629
1991 2 25 15.647
1997 3 20 15.684
2001 3 4 15.742
1989 3 6 15.766
1994 2 21 15.77
1981 3 14 15.801
1984 3 18 15.809
1993 3 13 16.048
1998 2 25 16.07
1986 3 10 16.158
1985 3 17 16.163
1990 3 12 16.249
1987 2 21 16.293
1980 3 5 16.302
1988 3 10 16.309
1982 2 27 16.325
1983 3 14 16.412
1979 3 1 16.635

As can be easily seen, by their particular algorithms and definitions, 2015 is still on track to setting a new low record. Note also that the 12 most recent years are also the 12 lowest years. Just beware that different agencies use different algorithms and definitions, thus showing somewhat different results. Mojo normal pattern is to call 'BS' on whichever shows a new record low.

 

Why is it so easy for you to disregard this,from the coastal zones blocked plot?
"However, the total estimated ice area is underestimated due to unclassified coastal regions where mixed land/sea pixels confuse the applied ice type algorithm. The shown sea ice extent values are therefore recommended be used qualitatively in relation to ice extent values from other years shown in the figure."

 

Why is it so hard for you to see that when comparing the measurements from this year to past years, all of which aren't measuring the coastal regions, that the ice area for the last 10 years is less than any in the 1990's, and except for 1993 and 1994, the 2000's and 1990's have been less than the 1980's.

That is a qualitative comparison of peak arctic ice area that has been measured by the same method.

The measured values are smaller than actual, but the coastal ice area will only change a great degree between years if there has been a change to the coastlines. There is a maximum amount of ice area that those coastal regions can add to the total. Adding that maximum to all the totals won't change the fact that the total arctic sea ice area per year is getting smaller over time.