Not subject to urban heat island effects, the trend
in global sea ice extent is a primary indicator of climate change, or the lack thereof.
Let's
cover global sea ice extent first: I stated that in 1980 the sea ice extent was zero and today it is zero, which is 35 years of dead flat.
When manacker excerpts a clip
about global sea ice extent without putting it in the context of the dramatic drop in Arctic ice (and the corresponding changes in Antarctic ice), he's doing essentially the same thing as pointing to the 20th century data in the Marcott paper without mentioning the robustness.
There has been a long - term downward trend in
summer global sea ice extent, though the trend is less clear in the winter, reflecting the fact that the Arctic shows a clearer long - term trend than the Antarctic.
Despite the reservations previously expressed by Walt Meier, NASA have now produced an animated GIF
of global sea ice extent:
Although Antarctic sea ice extent has modestly increased for various complex reasons, the loss of Arctic sea ice extent has been far more rapid, resulting in a net decrease
in global sea ice extent (Figure 3).
In my last column, I reported on a statistic concerning sea ice extent — that
global sea ice extent is unchanged since 1979 — that was trivially shown to be untrue, and for that I apologize.
The first web page also has a link to
global sea ice extent, and that shows that it is at a record low for the this day of the year, and has been very low for most of the year.
Global sea ice extent (despite it's inane measurement criteria) hit record low on 7 / 8th Feb..
An up - to - date perspective on
the global sea ice extent from 1979 to today [Data [Viz..
Share of global emissions in 2015 coal 41 % of total, oil 34 %, gas 19 %, cement 6 %, flaring 1 %
Global sea ice extent 2016 (red) versus all previous years since 1979 (black) by Grant Foster.
Why don't you publish
a global sea ice extent number?
The result is
a global sea ice extent near low - record levels.
The linear trend rate in
global sea ice extent is downward at a rate of 36000 km ^ 2 / yr, and is unquestionably statistically significant.
Furthermore, I am not trolling to whip up an argument for trolling sake; I am arguing against specific points about this article, namely appropriateness of linear trends, and that
global sea ice extent (not just the Arctic region) is dead flat.