Sunday, 7 August 2011

Arctic Sea Ice Recovery

The Arctic sea ice extent is now above what it was in the corresponding period in 2007 according to NSIDC. This means 4 years of a steady Arctic sea ice increase! The doomsayers are proven wrong as always. No need to worry about the polar bears!
The blue line shows the Arctic sea ice extent for 2011 (May-August) and the dashed line for 2007. By comparing 2011 to the year with the lowest extent (2007), NSIDC tries to give the impression that this year is very low as well. The black line is the average for 19971979-2000, and the grey area is two standard deviations. They have been included to give the impression that there is some kind of "normal" Arctic sea ice extent, and that 2011 and 2007 is well below that extent. What NSIDC is doing is called cherry picking: they pick the data that support their thesis and discard the rest. Being an experienced data analysician, I can easily see through such ruses. 

NSIDC get their money from federal agencies, and of course they want to keep the cash flowing even when the ice is not melting.

5 comments:

  1. Endophin Monkey7 August 2011 at 18:10

    These graphs do not take into account the hidden ice that can be found at the bottom of oceans, buried in the accumulated dirt of the seabed. Just as it is possible for there to be supercooled water - still liquid below the freezing point - there must automatically conversely be superheated ice, still solid above the frezzing point.

    This superdense material forms when warm water currents hits cold arctic air, which occurs in the high latitude regions due to the fact that the earth's magnetic field connects to the planet in these regions. This provides a conduit for the cold of space to more closely approach the surface.

    Anyone who disagrees must be ahenobarbic. I hope you appreciate this blog science discovery. Now get off my lawn!

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1979-2000, not 1997 :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. If the grey area shows two standard deviations, then surely the other lines must be just non-standard deviations? Deviations cannot be standard all the time, that would be boring!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brilliant! You guys must be British? No? Canadian? This is truly pythonesque -- keep it up! Yours, Cowardly Howard

    ReplyDelete
  5. 26-aug-2012 - This subject is ripe for an update.

    ReplyDelete

Welcome to comment on my blog, dear reader.