As the animation correctly indicates... Ice extent varies with ice thickness.

September (month end averages) NSIDC (sea ice extent)

2007 Southern Hemisphere = 19.2 million sq km
2008 Southern Hemisphere = 18.5 million sq km
2009 Southern Hemisphere = 19.1 million sq km

2007 Northern Hemisphere = 4.3 million sq km
2008 Northern Hemisphere = 4.7 million sq km
2009 Northern Hemisphere = 5.4 million sq km

Thickness of the polar ice is not thinning but growing thicker (older), as extent grows. Long term ice has thinned however currently ice is expanding. GK

So none of the ice broke free and was flushed away?

Was this over a real 4 year period or a make believe period taking place within one of NASA's climate models?

OK, if this is the case, it begs the question why has the ice cover increased since 2007. It should be continuously decreasing year after year. There was more ice in 2008 then 2007 and more in 2009 then 2008. This doesn't match up with what the animation is trying to portray.

If only their data was as reliable as their animations. What do the Polar Bears say?

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/06/another-blow-to-junk-science-polar-bear-populations-booming/

dosen't explain the increase in second year ice this year though.

AJC | October 23, 2009 12:53 PM

This animation illustrates hypothetical thinning ice. It does not represent times of growing ice.

If you want to see what the ice is currently doing... run the animation backwards. GK

The ice is thicker than the models projected. This is based on the flight of Polar 5.

In fact, seems it is twice as thick as projected.

Seems to be a rat somewhere? I do think that emperical evidence trumps modeled evidence does it not?

This go's to show that that all this hype about global warming is a con to make a few people very very rich! We see photos of a bear on thin ice taken in the height of summer of course the ice melts in summer! There is NO global warming FACT!

G. Karst | October 25, 2009 10:22 AM-

"This animation illustrates hypothetical thinning ice. It does not represent times of growing ice.

If you want to see what the ice is currently doing... run the animation backwards. GK "

It is this kind of 'backwards' thinking that is at the heart of denialists irrational arguments. Things in nature do not go backwards, the changes are 'irreversible', this is a fact of Physics and entropy. The 'arrow of time' only flows in one direction...forward. I recommend that people look in that direction, towards 'life', the past is dead.

Nice fantasy...who is the dreamer GK?

idecline (reality??) | October 28, 2009 3:08 AM

I would love to sit down with you and discuss the nature of time and entropy, however that is not the subject of this thread.

The subject is the PROCESS of ice accumulation and dispersal. Process is firmly rooted in the physical world and most are reversible. Tides come in and tides go out. Temperatures warm and then temperatures decline. Birds migrate south and then migrate north (NH). Water energizes to vapor then de-energizes to rain. Ice forms and ice melts.

While it is true time does not reverse, this does not mean processes do not reverse (across time). In fact we normally call that weather and by extension the abstract concept of climate. Yes, time flows forward in reality, however in modeling, and mathematics, time can flow in either direction accurately. GK

Idecline:
You said: "the changes are 'irreversible', this is a fact of Physics and entropy"

Aside from being wrong when talkig about Ice sheets in the Arctic, this comment "seems" irrational.

Can you clerify what you meant?
Clearly, natural cycles reverse themselves every year. So, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I must assume you menat somthing else.

Care to rephrase?

Not that it matters much in the context of climate change, but there seems to be silence in the denialosphere over the very slow recovery of Arctic sea ice this fall.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

MarkB | October 29, 2009 12:44 PM

"...the very slow recovery of Arctic sea ice this fall."

Actually this year's (2009) freeze-up curve looks remarkably similar to average. It was the rapid freeze-up of 2007 which fools your eye and mind.

Monthly averages will be out in a few days.

G. Karst writes:

"Actually this year's (2009) freeze-up curve looks remarkably similar to average."

Not at all. It's below the track of all other years this decade (in line now with 2007), which of course, was below the track of previous decades.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

"It was the rapid freeze-up of 2007 which fools your eye and mind."

Global warming denialism fools the eye and mind. Keep both open.

MarkB | October 31, 2009 5:08 PM

You are confusing the offset with the curve. Raise the 2009 freeze-up curve to the 1979 -2000 average curve and you will have a match.

"Global warming denialism fools the eye and mind. Keep both open"

I will try... if you stop calling me a denialist, just because I haven't been convinced of catastrophic global warming. You should perhaps start looking for another cause to promote the world socialist movement. AGW as a social springboard (never waste a good crisis) is declining with global temperatures. GK

duh!

No two things are ever the same in nature, there are ebbs and flows. BUT never identical conditions, time is a one way line. This years ice is not the "SAME' as last years ice, it all changes. Mathematics and statistics do not go backwards. Sorry for YOUR confusion.

"You are confusing the offset with the curve. Raise the 2009 freeze-up curve to the 1979 -2000 average curve and you will have a match."

You mean 2007 was an anomalously record low year for summer sea ice extent? Perhaps claiming "Arctic sea ice is growing", using 2007 as a baseline, is rather misleading then, especially considering that Arctic sea ice has been decling faster than models have projected.

"I will try... if you stop calling me a denialist, just because I haven't been convinced of catastrophic global warming. You should perhaps start looking for another cause to promote the world socialist movement. AGW as a social springboard (never waste a good crisis) is declining with global temperatures. GK"

Those not convinced of absolutely catastrophic global warming are often rational enough. The science gives us a range between very costly effects and absolute catastrophe. Best to be on the safe side. "Denialist" is reserved for those who believe that global temperatures are declining and scientists are perpetuating a hoax to promote the One World Socialist Government. Those folks are a little whacko, wouldn't you say?

MarkB | November 4, 2009 1:51 AM

"Best to be on the safe side."

Warming IS the SAFE side!

Cooling is, by far, the most dangerous phase of climate variables. Check out historical warm periods... Now compare the misery of a cooling climate and draw a reasonable conclusion.

Planting seeds in snow banks has never worked out for Man. Plant a seed in hot soil... add a little water and 'presto'... food right out of the ground, which then acts directly to moderate climate.

May I suggest tonight for dinner, you empty a tray of ice cubes on you plate. Go ahead and chow down to your heart's content. Let us know how satisfied you feel later. Bon Appetite. GK