On 22/01/2017 10:07, N_Cook wrote:
New thread as presuambly of international significance as the media ,
where mentioning this global minimum, refers to the Wipneus data plots.
I've rechecked my transcriptions and summations from the last 5 records
on the primary source, for the simple global extent

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ch...sea-ice-graph/

and contrary to the plot on , apparently ceased updating , or my browser
not doing so

https://sites.google.com/site/arctis...t_byyear_b.png


I don't have any recent uptick representaion, of recent increasing
global sea-ice extent
I get, in millions of sq km, inexorable depletion of sea-ice
16 Jan 2017, 16.692
17 Jan, 16.593
18 Jan, 16.507
19 Jan, 16.455
20 Jan, 16.444
(would someone else check my figures?)

Anyone know which version is corrct?
I suspect Wipneus is using a different data feed than the Charctic one,
area rather than extent perhaps, JAXA ?

No need to change the luck-would-have-it title, global sea-ice went up
by 1000 sq km for the 21 Jan reading of 16.445
Summarising so far.
Just because experts do not know of a connection between the poles that
could make the global amount of sea-ice so constant for 35 years, does
not mean there is no connection.
Even if it is climate change (insufficient amount of it until last
year), that is now so intrusive that it affects both poles whether in
their summer or winter.

On Sunday, 22 January 2017 14:17:07 UTC, N_Cook wrote:
On 22/01/2017 10:07, N_Cook wrote:
New thread as presuambly of international significance as the media ,
where mentioning this global minimum, refers to the Wipneus data plots.
I've rechecked my transcriptions and summations from the last 5 records
on the primary source, for the simple global extent

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ch...sea-ice-graph/

and contrary to the plot on , apparently ceased updating , or my browser
not doing so

https://sites.google.com/site/arctis...t_byyear_b.png


I don't have any recent uptick representaion, of recent increasing
global sea-ice extent
I get, in millions of sq km, inexorable depletion of sea-ice
16 Jan 2017, 16.692
17 Jan, 16.593
18 Jan, 16.507
19 Jan, 16.455
20 Jan, 16.444
(would someone else check my figures?)

Anyone know which version is corrct?
I suspect Wipneus is using a different data feed than the Charctic one,
area rather than extent perhaps, JAXA ?

No need to change the luck-would-have-it title, global sea-ice went up
by 1000 sq km for the 21 Jan reading of 16.445
Summarising so far.
Just because experts do not know of a connection between the poles that
could make the global amount of sea-ice so constant for 35 years, does
not mean there is no connection.
Even if it is climate change (insufficient amount of it until last
year), that is now so intrusive that it affects both poles whether in
their summer or winter.

There is a phenomena, known to experts as the polar see-saw, that would explain the "constant" sea ice over the last 35 years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_see-saw
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...77379115000554
As the Arctic sea ice decreased the Antarctic sea ice increased. Of course that does not explain why the see-saw has now broken down with both the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice decreasing.

On Monday, 23 January 2017 16:01:12 UTC, Alastair wrote:
On Sunday, 22 January 2017 14:17:07 UTC, N_Cook wrote:
On 22/01/2017 10:07, N_Cook wrote:
New thread as presuambly of international significance as the media ,
where mentioning this global minimum, refers to the Wipneus data plots.
I've rechecked my transcriptions and summations from the last 5 records
on the primary source, for the simple global extent

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ch...sea-ice-graph/

and contrary to the plot on , apparently ceased updating , or my browser
not doing so

https://sites.google.com/site/arctis...t_byyear_b.png


I don't have any recent uptick representaion, of recent increasing
global sea-ice extent
I get, in millions of sq km, inexorable depletion of sea-ice
16 Jan 2017, 16.692
17 Jan, 16.593
18 Jan, 16.507
19 Jan, 16.455
20 Jan, 16.444
(would someone else check my figures?)

Anyone know which version is corrct?
I suspect Wipneus is using a different data feed than the Charctic one,
area rather than extent perhaps, JAXA ?

No need to change the luck-would-have-it title, global sea-ice went up
by 1000 sq km for the 21 Jan reading of 16.445
Summarising so far.
Just because experts do not know of a connection between the poles that
could make the global amount of sea-ice so constant for 35 years, does
not mean there is no connection.
Even if it is climate change (insufficient amount of it until last
year), that is now so intrusive that it affects both poles whether in
their summer or winter.

There is a phenomena, known to experts as the polar see-saw, that would explain the "constant" sea ice over the last 35 years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_see-saw
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...77379115000554
As the Arctic sea ice decreased the Antarctic sea ice increased. Of course that does not explain why the see-saw has now broken down with both the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice decreasing.

I don't suppose either of the main contributors to this escargo chasseur panzerfraus have consulted the Arctic weather charts, have they?
I haven't been following along, I just presumed the reason would be sea surface currents rather than anticyclone activity.

I dare say they don't want to know how global cooling could be removing the ice, nor how. It would be interesting to find that the present earthquake activity is the cause of it all.

I only hope they are not taking turns sticking their heads in Dawlish. Dirty buggers!

On Monday, 6 February 2017 21:54:51 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:

'Dawlish.'

The obsession continues, amongst total, unadulterated, denial.

First daily decrement for a while, due to the Antarctic.
16.506 million
previous day was just +0.001, The Wipneus calcs had this a day or so
earlier , like the uptick a week back
I suppose when Larsen C breaks away, initially the sea-ice extent area
will show an increase, but area will be the same.
Whatever the finger in the Ross Sea was on the Antarctic image , earlier
this month, is not there now ,it would seem

In message , N_Cook
writes
I suppose when Larsen C breaks away, initially the sea-ice extent area
will show an increase, but area will be the same.

Ah. I've been wondering what the difference between "extent" and "area"
was, but I think that implicitly answers my question. So the "area" is
the total surface area of the frozen bits, while the "extent" is the
area that is at least partially frozen?
--
John Hall
"One can certainly imagine the myriad of uses
for a hand-held iguana maker"
Hobbes (the tiger, not the philosopher!)

"John Hall" wrote in message ...


Ah. I've been wondering what the difference between "extent" and "area"
was, but I think that implicitly answers my question. So the "area" is
the total surface area of the frozen bits, while the "extent" is the
area that is at least partially frozen?
=============================

Yes, broadly correct I think. But a more formal answer at:

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/d...rminology.html

In message , JohnD
writes
"John Hall" wrote in message
...

Ah. I've been wondering what the difference between "extent" and "area"
was, but I think that implicitly answers my question. So the "area" is
the total surface area of the frozen bits, while the "extent" is the
area that is at least partially frozen?
=============================

Yes, broadly correct I think. But a more formal answer at:

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/d...rminology.html

Thanks, John.
--
John Hall
"One can certainly imagine the myriad of uses
for a hand-held iguana maker"
Hobbes (the tiger, not the philosopher!)

On 27/01/2017 16:36, John Hall wrote:
In message , N_Cook writes
I suppose when Larsen C breaks away, initially the sea-ice extent area
will show an increase, but area will be the same.

Ah. I've been wondering what the difference between "extent" and "area"
was, but I think that implicitly answers my question. So the "area" is
the total surface area of the frozen bits, while the "extent" is the
area that is at least partially frozen?

Extent includes leads and melt lakes.
It looks as though
sum [ concentration x extent (cell by cell)] = total area

Global extent total still dropping, back to what is was 10 days ago at
16.473 million sq km for 27 Jan 2017, while Wipneus is off-air for the
weekend, may have to soon amend the heading of this thread.
I see these bods
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/ind...1611.2250.html
are now getting into CO2 and salinity anomalies around the Arctic