Annual Arctic Ice Recovering
September 26, 2015
By Paul Homewood
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/09/26/arctic-ice-rebound/
Ron Clutz offers his views on the latest Arctic ice numbers:
MASIE Proves Yearly Arctic Ice Recovering
You will be hearing a lot about 2015 having the fourth lowest minimum Arctic ice extent ever recorded.
Here is what they are not telling you:
Read the rest here.
8 Comments
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Arctic sea ice inversely correlates closely with the AMO.
The UIUC dataset I graphed strangely doesn’t include the data from before 1979. That does exist from 1972, and it shows that yep, the sea ice extent peak tracked the AMO trough.
We are now starting to see the effect of the AMO turnover, so no surprise that the sea ice extent is recovering as per your graph.
But I’m not allowed to talk about the ~60 year cycle, its verboten to think something other than CO2 is important.
I’ve no issue with the post, other than the solid line (blue, I think) connecting the “diamonds” that represents the yearly averages. The points of these straight line segments are not defined – or at least I don’t think so.
The numbers 2006, 2007, …, 2015 represent the years but not the mid-point of that year. What do the “tick” marks represent? Would the first one (left side) represent Midnight Dec. 31, 2006? Seems likely but will the y-value (ordinate) be an average of ‘M km2’ for some number of days? How many? What ones?
In short, this is the wrong sort of chart for the data.
Insofar as the information displayed is “area”, something similar to the chart at this link would do.
This uses circles. Squares could be used. But not balls or pyramids.
No mystery. The data points are as stated, the average extent over 365 days of the year identified.
So over that first tick mark –-
Do you use the last 182.5 days of 2006 plus the first 182.5 days of 2007, so the ordinate above that tick mark is the average of 365 days?
No, Jan 1 to Dec 31.
Thanks, Paul.
Yes, MACIE-NH data is showing a last 4-weeks recovery, if it lasts then it’ll become a problem for the alarmists. But the previous four years are problematic already.
I have linked to the MACIE-NH home page and graphics from my climate change pages.
Ron,
Your answer seems to be for the first diamond, centered over the 2006. Over the first tick mark — appears to represent ~Midnight on Dec. 31, 2006, the number reads as about 10.5 M km2. This is an estimate from your model, namely that a straight line connects 2 yearly averages. The position of the diamonds mid-point above the year numbers does not establish a date. While the chart seems to depict a function from mid-year to next mid-year, this is a false impression.
You are presenting a very odd “run chart” – a mixture of data (the diamonds), and unidentifiable short straight lines from one diamond to the next, and a run of years along the bottom that suggests, incorrectly, that those short line segments have meaning. They do not. This is not what you need.
Consider using vertical bars. The bars will have a width that represents 1 M km2 and the height set equal to the yearly average. Then the bar (which is a rectangle) has an area equal to the yearly average (width X height). The year’s label, say 2010, can appear inside the bar to identify it. Most put these labels at the bottom because it is the easiest way, but that is not necessary or the best decision. [It is a Microsoft corruption of good graphic design.]
I hope the above clarifies my thought on this. I’m now going hiking in the Washington Cascades, so won’t be able to respond.
Paul: Were you aware of this?
“Oceanographers have gathered fresh evidence that turbulence in the Arctic Ocean, driven by the wind, is stirring up heat from the depths.
As dwindling ice exposes more water to the wind, this turbulence could close a vicious circle, accelerating the melt.
The research team has measured heat rising from below that matches what is arriving from the autumn sun.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34324439