cohenite,

"Now both ice area and extent are both up so don't quibble about "mass"."

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82094

"Although the extent of the Arctic Ocean covered by sea ice is higher this September than it was in 2012, it does not indicate “global cooling” or a recovery of the Arctic sea ice. As shown in the plot above, the extent of Arctic sea ice has decreased in every season of the year since 1979."

"The Arctic sea ice cover today is much thinner on average than it was years ago. Satellite imagery, submarine sonar measurements, and data collected from NASA’s Operation IceBridge indicate that the sea ice thickness is as much as 50 percent thinner than in previous decades, going from an average thickness of 3.8 meters (12.5 feet) in 1980 to 1.9 meters (6.2 feet) in recent years. Older, thicker ice is being replaced by thinner, seasonal ice.

Most of the Arctic Ocean used to be covered by multiyear ice, or ice that has survived at least two summers and is typically 3 to 4 meters (10 to 13 feet) thick. This older ice has declined at an even faster rate than younger ice and is now largely relegated to a strip along the northern coast of Greenland. The rest of the Arctic Ocean is dominated by first year ice, or ice that formed over the previous winter and is only 1 to 2 meters (3 to 7 feet) thick.

“Thinner ice melts completely at a faster rate than thicker ice does, so if the average thickness of Arctic sea ice goes down, it’s more likely that the extent of the summer ice will go down as well,” said Joey Comiso, senior scientist at NASA."

And, of course, there's Andy Lee Robinson's excellent rendering to show us that little "recoveries" punctuate the inevitable decline in Arctic sea ice volumes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAMN3a6u91M

A nice visual that, thanks Poirot. Deniers get furiously excited at the upsurges but won't acknowledge the trend. Don't expect much impact upon the belief system of the OLO illuminati, but nice try.

When the continental ice follows suite, it will get even more interesting.

I'm waiting for one of them to explain the marriage between CO2 concentration and surface air temperature over the last 800,000 years (and most probably much longer) and why we should expect a divorce at this juncture in human history.

Poirot, as I've said, you do not read what you present, or if you do read, you perceive through your blinkers that AGW is indisputably real; your mind is closed to anything which contradicts this.

The IPCC 1990, FAR report incorporated a graph [see WG 1, chapter 7. Figure 7.19(a), page 224] of the Arctic ice levels based on pre-1979 satellite data which showed indisputably that Arctic ice peaked in 1979 and was at its lowest in 1974:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_07.pdf

Here is the graph;

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/screenhunter_170-jun-15-11-10.jpg

The point about this Poirot is that by beginning in 1979, the year of the highest sea ice extent in the Arctic, AGW has cherry-picked a date which means all subsequent years are lower; if it had started from 1974, most of the subsequent years would have been higher.

Your gullibility knows no bounds

I was thinking a professional science based response was required but given the shill's shrill, nope.

OLO is not the place to get your 'climate science'.

"The point about this Poirot is that by beginning in 1979, the year of the highest sea ice extent in the Arctic, AGW has cherry-picked a date which means all subsequent years are lower; if it had started from 1974, most of the subsequent years would have been higher."

"Cherry-pick", eh?

Educate me, cohenite.

I was under the impression that 1979 was when the satellite record began.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/sea_ice.php

"Since 1978, satellites have monitored sea ice growth and retreat, and they have detected an overall decline in Arctic sea ice."

Poirot

Nice graphic. Thanks

Cohenite wrote:

>>Now both ice area and extent are both up so don't quibble about "mass">>

LOL

I guess I can understand why someone who thinks breathing causes a net increase in atmospheric CO2 levels may regard mass as a "quibble." I'll do my best.

The mass or volume of ice is the metric of interest because it tells us how much ice the arctic icecap contains.

The shape of the icecap will vary from year to year depending on the vicissitudes of ocean currents and winds. Some years it will be thinner and cover a larger area; in other years it will be thicker and cover a smaller area.

Now so far as I can tell the graphic you linked shows variations in area, not volume or mass. Volume, as Poirot's graphic shows, is in precipitate decline indicating that ice is melting faster in summer than it can be replaced in winter.

THIS IS WHAT LEADS US TO BELIEVE TEMPERATURES AROUND THE ARCTIC ARE RISING.

Capiche?

I'm guessing probably not.

The area of the icecap does affect albedo but that's another story.

AGW is real. Deal with it and move on. I suggest the interesting questions are the ones I raised in my previous post.