Arctic Sea Ice: the Denier Viewpoint

Since 1979 we’ve kept watch on the Arctic sea ice pack using satellites. It grows and decays with the seasons of course; more ice in winter/spring, less in summer/fall. But over the decades, we’ve also seen it waste away from year to year.

We get an even better view if we show the average for each year:

Now it’s obviously getting smaller. Not every year, of course — it does so in fits and starts, always fluctuating about — but the long term pattern, the trend, is clear. Deny it, and you are a denier.

Enter the WUWT blog, where we are assured that Arctic sea ice shows strong growth right now.

We are treated to this graph of (believe it or not) almost the exact same data I’ve already shown you:

It highlights how the extent of Arctic sea ice on Feb. 23 (yesterday) was way bigger than it had been on the same date of previous years. Pretty obvious. But … how do you get anything even close to that, from the data I started with?

I can do it. Here it is:


To do that, I had to leave out quite a lot. That includes the years 1979 through 2005, 2007 through 2010, and 2012 through 2014. If I had shown you all the years for which we have satellite data, you might not be so impressed:

Besides, if I had included all those years, I should probably make room for them on the graph by expanding the y-axis

Me personally, I’d have been tempted to show you the whole year long.

Sometimes, it’s what they don’t show you that you should pay most attention to.

This blog is made possible by readers like you; join others by donating at My Wee Dragon.


82 responses to “Arctic Sea Ice: the Denier Viewpoint

  1. If a denier ever presented all the facts in context…well I guess they couldn’t be deniers if they did that.

  2. As tedious as it might seem to refute these amateurish acts of deceit it is very important nonetheless. Please keep it up. Donation incoming.

  3. Wow. Epic cherry-picking. WUWT never fails to amaze. I wish they’d shut up, but I reckon they are increasingly irrelevant in the real world. That this is the level deniers have to stoop to, indicates the degree to which they have lost the argument.

    • Wow! Was precisely my reaction. That has to be right up there with the worst efforts ever. Whoever did that should get into the WUWT hall of fame.

    • Nope! Not cherrypicking. That’s just flat out lying–but hey, if it’s good enough for the President…

      • Well, he did literally ‘pick’ every year with a lower February 23 extent for display. (Six out of forty!) Seems like a “both-and” to me.

  4. And you can guarantee that, if the low extent is anywhere close to the 2012 low, or even lower than last year (the 5th or 6th lowest on record), you won’t hear a peep from the deniers.

  5. Surely no-one can be stupid enough to believe that deliberately leaving out the years that had a larger area of Arctic Sea Ice constitutes a valid argument. The WUWT people are obviously just being deliberately dishonest, which is beneath contempt considering the potential suffering that AGW has the potential to bring.

    [Response: As stupid as it is, it works. How many times will I have to explain to new victims they’ve been suckered? Lots. And let’s face it — if you don’t have access to the data and how to plot it or analyze it, how could you be expected to know better?]

  6. Why stop the Intel at 1980? Why not go back to say the 1930s or maybe the late 1800s? I know, let’s go back even further. Oh wait I know why. You dont have the data. Which means it’s you that is leaving out the info. Info that you don’t have. Which in turn means that you lack sufficient resources to make an informed statement on exactly what is going on or more importantly what the total artic ice content “should” be. Which in conclusion indicates you dont know enough to insinuate that the earth is doing anything other than exactly what it IS doing.

    [Response: To answer your question: I started with 1979 (not 1980) because the data used by “Javier” on the WUWT blog starts in 1979.

    There is data before 1979, but not from satellite observations. You can read about it here:

    and here

    I have looked at the data. My conclusions are based on that. I have not limited my study to the satellite era.

    But apparently, you have limited your study to the stupid shit on the WUWT blog.

    Thank you for demonstrating that, as I said before, no matter how many times I refute stupid bullshit, I’ll hear the same stupid bullshit claims again and again. In this case, from you.]

    • Yeah, geez, Tamino, why didn’t include the data you don’t have.

      I’m still kinda struggling with the jump from “We don’t have some data” to “therefore, we can’t make informed statements on what is going on”. Kinda feels like there’s a logical gap there.

      Like, we don’t have tests of Relativity or the Ideal Gas Law from 300 BC, either, but that doesn’t mean we don’t understand these phenomena. See: “the scientific concept of relevant timescales”.

    • It is kind a hilarous that the very first comment made by a denier on History of Arctic (and Antarctic) Sea Ice, Part 1 reads:
      It doesn’t matter how “exhaustive” the study is, if the data isn’t available then its simply not available. The only data of any worth for trend analysis is that of satellite data.

      [Response: Hilarious indeed!]

  7. Tamino is simply trying to disguise the clear recent trend by showing all of the data since the end of the last Arctic ice maximum in the 1970s. Coincidentally, the satellite era began when the Arctic ice was at its maximum, as Tamino shows ice has declined since then. What Javier believes is that we are now near the minimum and the trend is shifting from down to up due to natural cycles. I agree that is likely, but only time will tell if the current upswing will continue. Tamino is making the common mistake of assuming that climate changes in a linear way, this is why Al Gore was so wrong when he predicted Arctic ice would be gone in the summer by now.

    [Response: Those are lies. Either you are so stupid that you got completely suckered by the lies at WUWT, or you yourself are an outright liar.]

    • You’d have thought that after the “global warming stopped in 1998 nonsense” anyone would see through WUWT’s habit for using short term trends to ignore long term trends. If that wasn’t enough, iirc, WUWT did the same nonsense with sea level rise. I can only assume that some kind of mysterious collective amnesia afflicts the WUWTers.

    • Al Gore made no such prediction. So you are lying right off the top. He simply reported on a single scientist (Maslowski) who said that IF the straight line drop in volume of that time continued, there would be no ice at minimum extent by now. That statement was correct.

    • Andy May: Are you are so stupid that you got completely suckered by the lies at WUWT, or are you yourself an outright liar?

      • Postkey, just search for “Andy May” and “petrophysicist”, and you’ll know what you’re dealing with.

        He’s got a book to sell…

      • No, he’s just a pro-adaptation petrophysicist (well yeah so maybe)….and good luck to him with that (pants on fire).

    • Andy May,
      You are saying that there is a “clear recent trend” in Arctic SIE and that “only time will tell if the current upswing will continue.”

      So I’m looking for this “clear recent trend.”

      The last three years have been remarkably un-icy un in the Arctic so any “clear recent trend” can only have stretched back a few weeks. Yet the Arctic SIE levels are very variable so a “trend” lasting a few eeks is nothing but noise.
      As an instance of this, last year, 2018, Arctic SIE levels were hitting all-time record lows in October then after a dramatic freeze were showing SIE higher than seen in a decade after which they dropped back down again (for the time of year) into December, down to the levels seen only in 2017 & 2016, pretty-much down to another all-time low.
      Since the beginning of the year 2019 SIE has been running alongside 2016 and it is only in the last couple of weeks that 2019 has strayed above the levels of the previous six years.
      How then is can Arctic SIE over the last two weeks be seen as a “clear recent trend?” Even as the muppet on Wattsupia was tapping out his article on 23rd Feb, the JAXA Arctic SIE (which is not as heavily smoothed as the NSIDC ChArctic used by the muppet – see here for a graph of JAXA Arctic SIE daily anomalies (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’)): JAXA was showing a steep drop back down to more recent levels and this has continued, although 2019 is still showing the iciest time-of-year since 2015, just. So is this half-a-week decline now to be the end of this “current upswing” you are on about?

      It all seems mighty trivial for the attention it is recieving. Or perhaps you are looking at this Arctic SIE data in a different way and it is some other reckoning you are on about.

  8. All the graphs on WUWT are linked to the original research source, the graphs shown here are mystery sourced, if this can be corrected it should be.

    [Response: I make my own graphs. The data used are here:

  9. “Those are lies. Either you are so stupid …”
    My, my, did I touch a nerve?

    [Response: LOL!!! Good try. But we see right through you. I can always tell when someone makes ludicrous, stupid, false claims which I know to be false because I’ve seen the data and studied it in detail, but only makes claims with no evidence of support at all — not even references to WUWT where you can find all of the same stupidity.

    Now you want to provide a “reference” to a graph I’ve already seen, from a paper I’ve already read, written by a crackpot.

    The only “nerve” you hit is our funny bone! In case you missed it … we’re not laughing *with* you …]

  10. Here is Dr. Judith Curry’s take on the paper.


    [Response: Funnier and funnier! We already know about Judith Curry.

    Thank you so much for the opportunity, once again, to promote a such damning demonstration of Judith Curry’s scientific incompetence.]

  11. I’m sure the Pentagon would disagree strenuously with Andy May that this is just some sort of “natural cycle” that will momentarily reverse itself by some mysterious method and start freezing up again. They are very alarmed by the fact that all their infrastructure in Alaska that has been in place since during and right after World War 2 is being damaged or destroyed because of the melting ice and permafrost and they’re spending billions of defense department dollars in trying to mitigate the effects of the rapidly warming conditions that predominate over the Arctic these days.

    As a professional meteorologist (now retired) i have to laugh at the preposterous lengths that deniers have to attempt to push their ideologically driven agenda of business as usual and nothing to worry about here. I’m particularly amused by their repeatedly resorting to the shibboleth of natural cycles to explain what they can’t deny to anyone with working eyeballs. It’s as it those natural cycles are some mysterious force that nobody can unravel and that they will continue to work their magic forever with no opportunity for rational humans to figure out what drives those natural cycles. What do they think scientists have been doing for the last nearly 200 years of studying the atmosphere and the climate system to figure out just what drives those natural cycles?!? Oh, I know, climate scientists are just in it for the grant money they can squeeze from liberal billionaires to further their left wing political aims!!! When I’m not laughing at the stupidity of such notions I tend to be quite resentful of such people denigrating my profession just because they don’t agree with the conclusions that have been painstakingly uncovered over the past two centuries of diligent and sometimes dangerous work by dedicated scientists and technicians who would have gone to work in Wall Street if they really wanted to make money!

  12. I noticed you edited my comment, removing the very pertinent link to a graph and the reference to the honored “feature article” in the prestigious Hydrological Sciences Journal. Hmmm, this sort of deceitful and dishonorable manipulation betrays the weakness of your argument.

    [Response: Once again, you fail to understand.

    My job is to enlighten readers. One way is to shine a light on misleading arguments like “strong growth in Arctic sea ice” based on a few days’ data, plotted for easy viewing by hiding *everything* contradictory — even in the data chosen by the author himself! As for actual science, maybe some trend analysis or statistical tests, or even careful qualitative comparison other than snark about Al Gore … that’s nowhere to be found.

    Then you and your ilk come along to protest there was sea ice before 1980! That was a local peak maximum!! It’s a cycle!!! We eagerly await your upcoming proof that really, it’s the sun.

    What you don’t talk about, is making bold claims based on a few days’ data by hiding all of it that contradicts you, while doing no analysis and no science. In other words, what you don’t talk about is … the subject of this post.

    I’ve seen your “evidence” before. I know that I can never dissuade you from your folly. I’m not interested in debating idiots, and that’s what you are. But I do thank you, thank you again, for being such a wonderful foil.]

  13. Andy May wrote: “Coincidentally, the satellite era began when the Arctic ice was at its maximum, as Tamino shows ice has declined since then.”

    What evidence do you have that Arctic sea ice was at a natural maximum at the beginning of the satellite era and is now at a natural minimum, so that the downward trend of the last four decades was (according to you) entirely natural?

    “What Javier believes …”

    No not belief, evidence please?

    • andreas dobbertin

      The standardized NSIDC arctic Sea Ice Extent data clearly show no maximum in 1979, when satellite observation began, nor is any hint for a cycle in SIE discernable. The data can be found here : .

      • “The standardized NSIDC arctic Sea Ice Extent data clearly show no maximum in 1979, when satellite observation began, nor is any hint for a cycle in SIE discernable. The data can be found here : .”

        Thank you. I suspected as much, but I thought I’d give Andy May a chance to present evidence for his claim of a natural cycle in SIE.

    • The “Arctic Ice at its maximum in 1979” is a good pointer to denier mentality. For instance, for this to be true, Nansen’s epic crossing of the NW passage has to be erased from history: Nansen had no need to get frozen into the ice when he should have been able to easily sail straight through in the summer as can be done nowadays.

      On my side of the Atlantic we have a new name for people like Andy May: Brexiters.

  14. What are you trying to say? It’s not clear.

  15. Wow, I just plotted the data myself for 2005-2019, and it is astounding how utterly unremarkable 2019 is if taken in context. I have to hand it to all the imbeciles over at WTFUWT. It took a lot of work to pick out only those years that make 2019 look like some kind of recovery. This quality of stupid doesn’t come naturally even for real morons.

    • @snarkrates – And shouldn’t the news be that 7 out of 8 lowest winter-extents recorded since 1979 have all been in the last decade, and they are all lower than 2012s winter extent? And that this 2019 looks like it will conform to that trend.

  16. Exactly, satellite data or not the picture that would include the picture from the 30’s to the 70’s would also show a different picture. Both sides are guilty in this case. I’m

    [Response: This post is about bold claims based on a few days’ data, by hiding everything contradictory, on the WUWT blog.

    That “Both sides are guilty” thing sounds a little like “He did too!” or “Nu-huh!”]

  17. About 7 out of 8 lowest winter-extents (not even including 2012 in that) recorded since 1979 have all been in the last decade, and they are all lower than 2012s winter extent? And that 2019 is on track to conform to that trend.

  18. Marc de Ruijter

    Well done. I’m often flabbergasted by denier blogs, but it is not that easy to point out the flaws/omissions/lies.

  19. The guy who runs should be stopped. When SHTF he and others like him with the denier message I hope hide real good till no one can care cause we’ll be worrying about survival.

    [Response: What do you mean by “stopped”? If it involves censorship or violence or the threat of violence, count me out. If it involves retribution, count me out.

    They get to say what they choose on their blogs. I get to say on my blog.]

    • Timothy (likes zebras)

      I have to thank you tamino for a massive laugh at your progression of graphs.

      However, there’s a warning for us here too. There is precedence for this sort of result-centred analysis to be enforced on science institutes by authoritarian governments. If the Trumpists are not excised from the political system they will seek to meddle with the data.

  20. No global warming / climate change, no grants or free money. Typical Liberal.

  21. Deplorable Denier

    You’re a dumb fuck. Wheres the data from 1900 to 1978? How bout data from 100 to 1900. Or data from the past 25 million years?

    • Wow! The stupid is strong in this one. See KiwiGriff’s last plot for long-term reconstruction of Arctic Sea Ice. Notice anything? I suspect not.

    • And you’re rude and unpleasant. If you really want to know–which I’m inclined to doubt–try asking nicely. I know where some is, so do many here, and most assuredly so does tamino.

  22. What the Blogger probably deliberately doesn’t mention is that he’s going by measurements that started in 1979 which was right at the end of a thirty-year-old cold spell. Warming is what you get at the end of a 30-year cold spell. And melting ice. But the minimum arctic ice extent in September over the last two years is up 11%. We’ll see what happens in September 2019. But this column is deceptive.

    • How robust do you think a three year trend is exactly? And what exactly caused the warming at the end of alleged thirty year cold spell? And has that warming stopped, triggering the ice recovery? Simple questions.

    • Uh, dude, ever hear of the First Law of Thermodynamics? It says that warming is what you get when you add energy to the system. Where does that energy come from?

    • “Deceptive”? As opposed to a 3-year trend? Are you listening to yourself?

      How can giving the entire data record be “deceptive”?

      Oh, and look at the longer-term reconstructions given in a comment below.

  23. Very nicely done, Tamino! Succinct and, when you go through all the graphs you present, hilarious.
    It’s going to be interesting to see what the Trump admin panel on climate change led by Willaim Happer will trot out. Plenty of this kind of denialist stuff, I suspect.

    • Unfortunately, it won’t be interesting to see what Will Hapless trots out–because he has no insight to give. When it comes to climate, he is utterly ignorant, an embarrassment even to the denialati.

      • “Hapless” is an okay nickname, but I prefer what we called him back when all I knew about him is that he ought not to be let within a kilometer of teaching an undergrad course: The Happerition. He was, I daresay, the most uncaring teacher I ever had. And yet it still surprises me that he’s ended up lying for profit. (Yes, when you’re an atomic physicist, you know damn well that satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature do not use the same method as those infrared ear thermometers that doctors use. Which means saying they work the same way is a lie.)

      • “…when you’re an atomic physicist, you know damn well that satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature do not use the same method as those infrared ear thermometers that doctors use.”

        Hell, I know that, and I discontinued math after grade 11 in order to devote more time to music studies. I guess the the real difference is that I wouldn’t lie about it, unlike the Haploid.

  24. Gee Tamino you seem to have hit a rich streak of whackos .
    I see they are all making unsupported claims .
    This ain’t LOLWUWT kids.
    We try to support our views with that strange thing called peer reviewed science .
    Like this .
    A new time series of September Arctic sea ice extent: 1935-2014
    Publicado el 2016/01/14
    English version .

    Or this
    A database for depicting Arctic sea ice variations back to 1850
    John E. WalshFlorence FettererJ. Scott StewartWilliam L. Chapman
    First published: 11 July 2016

    Or even this .
    Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years
    Christophe Kinnard, Christian M. Zdanowicz, David A. Fisher, Elisabeth Isaksson, Anne de Vernal & Lonnie G. Thompson

    • Michael D Sweet.

      It is striking to me that several of the deniers who have commented have claimed, without data, that 1979 was a local high in sea ice and a decline is expected. Kiwigriff’s data clearly shows that the decline started decades before that (and Tamino’s data he linked at the start of the discussion). Why do they repeat this obviously deliberate falsehood? Can WUWT be claiming that 1979 was a local high?

      They also claim that more data is needed to make a decision and no conclusion can be made untill that data is obtained. As Kiwigriff shows, that data is readily available and scientists have considered it in their conclusions. It is imposible to reason with people who are deliberately ignotant.

      • Heller has provided such “data” somewhere. Not worth the time to go look for it again.

      • Heller referenced a graph from IPCC FAR. Folk will be familiar with the denialist uses of FAR Fig 7.1c as proof positive that there was a Little Ice Age and a Medaevial Warm Period, the latter, of course, dwarfing recent warming despite the graphic being “schematic” and the text suggesting these wobbles were not global phenomenon.
        The use of Fig 7.20a on FAR Page 225 is probably a little better founded but not by much. The data was based on The American Navy Joint Ice Center charts which were created for navigation not as a record of ice concentrations. Fig 7.20a spans the period 1973-1990, most of which which we have satellite data for. The match between FAR Fig 7.20a and the satellite data doesn’t give much reason to be confident in the ANJIC data.

    • One of the things to keep in mind is that ‘sea ice extent’ is defined by the area of water containing at least 15% ice, by surface area. The thing is, with melting of multi-year ice bodies the large expanses of original ice fragment and disperse in the water but still appear as a concentration of greater than 15% ice coverage, so the recorded extent is overinflated by this dispersal.

      As others have noted the sea ice volume has declined more precipititously, and this is reflecting the fact that this parameter doesn’t have the embodied artifact of dispersing ice fragments masking the real decline.

      • In another setting I got into a severe argument a while back about open water on the north coast of Greenland. It was clearly visible in actual photographs but the old-style extent maps with the 15% cutoff showed solid ice. The newer graded maps showed it fine, but the deniers involved simply ignored photos and better charts.

        So yes, this can be confusing and/or misusable by people misrepresenting the science.

    • Wow, this is really good stuff! Thanks a lot.

  25. Oh my GOD kiwi…that last graph commits the CARDINAL error of putting the modern observational data right there on the same graph with the reconstructed data! All it does is repeat Mann’s CLASSIC mistake as pointed out by the real climate scientists McKittrick and McIntyre!

  26. This post is denouncing an outrageous example of data-cooking, which is good.
    But I am somewhat surprised by the amount of ad hominem emotional comments here, and I consider them all not helpful. I would have deleted the “You are a dumb fuck!” – comment immediately, for instance, but it’s your blog – your choice. The original post of Andy May is certainly not stringent and logical in many ways, which can be dealed with in 4 sentences.
    I can imagine, how maddening it must be for an American to try and break the bulwark of illogical, unscientific, partisan and outright made-up arguments of the denialist side for years and years, while knowing that every bloody lost month is so valuable. OTOH I believe, that aggressive and sarcastic rhethorics just don’t cut it.

    • Uh, dude. The vitriol is in almost every instance the spew of the denialist assclowns who are descending on us to gather Willard points. They do not wish to be educated. There are not in fact educable. Their lives are ones of pure epistemic closure. Frankly, I can’t be arsed to muster respect for such pathetic examples of humanity.

    • I reckon that once someone goes “full denier”, they lose the right to civil discourse. It gets tiresome being civil to people who are lying.

  27. On the disinformation these deniers get from WUWT Et al.
    Time and again you will see evidence produced from the published literature to deny sea ice decline that ends at BP… Before Present.
    They fail to point out that the scientific definition of BP is a fixed date 1 January 1950.
    As you can see from the Ice extent data above the decline has mostly happened since BP 1950.

    The authors on such sites well aware that they are deceiving their audience.

    • “The authors on such sites well aware that they are deceiving their audience.”

      I agree. The author of the WUWT post had to be aware of the data from all the years in order to choose to display only the years with less Arctic Sea Ice than the current year. He or she is obviously deliberately lying and deserves nothing but contempt!

      • Well, given that the years selected are also clearly visible on the right side of the graph as part of its interactive nature, the audience would appear to be complicit in their own deceit–and if the audience, why not the author?

        I’d assumed for years that Orwellian doublethink, as laid in the classic dystopian novel 1984 was a bold, fictional extrapolation of what human psychology was capable of doing. But now, after some years of involvement in the so-called ‘climate debate’, I’m inclined to believe that George Orwell had in fact had opportunities to observe the phenomenon in action–as I now have.

        (For those who haven’t read the novel, in it true Party members are expected to be able to believe one thing for operational purposes–say, that the world is round–and something quite incompatible for political purposes–with the political ‘facts’ being privileged as the ‘real’ ones. It seems pretty familiar today.)

      • Yes, Orwell was a literary genius! I read “1984” decades ago and at the time thought it was an extreme caricature of some people; I didn’t think that anyone could simultaneously hold two mutually contradictory opinions and/or beliefs.

        This reminds me of a joke: In his closing argument a defense attorney says: “My client never borrowed the Ming vase, he returned it in perfect condition, and the crack in the vase was already present before he borrowed it.”

      • Or, as Orwell actually put it:

        The keyword here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink. Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
        — Part II, Chapter IX – The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism

      • Gary Kasparov (who does have quite a bit of practical experience resisting dictatorships) has said that the more absurd the dictator’s lie, the more accepting it demonstrates one’s loyalty. “Oh look, he’s willing to look like a total dumb ass for the group. That’s takin’ one for the team!”

        [Response: He’s a pretty smart guy.]

      • (I probably should also have added that Orwell is known to have been influenced by Stalin’s show trials, which featured prominent Communist Party members ‘confessing’ to crimes they had not been guilty of, apparently with full sincerity. Orwell, as a journalist, had ample opportunity in general to observe the psychology of apparatchiks of varying flavors during the tumultuous years of the mid-20th century. Presumably another influential incident was the Stalinist flip-flop on Hitler, when the two morphed from deadly enemies to nominal ‘friends’ with the signing of a mutual non-agression pact in 1939, preparatory to dividing up eastern Europe. Incidentally, my former father-in-law told me that the non-aggression pact was the reason for his break with the Communist party, of which he had been a member. Like any of us, he had his blind spots, but he was essentially a man of integrity–not of doublethink. I imagine that he might have tolerated the pact as a matter of tactics–during the purges from 1936 on Stalin had pretty much decimated his senior officer corps, so conflict with Hitler was contraindicated for the Soviet Union in 1939–but the doublethink ‘rehabilitation’ of Naziism was too much.)

  28. The Arctic Sea Ice extent has decreased again. It is not the lowest ever for today but is close. It is common for the area to go up and down this time of year. The melt season will start in April.

    I am sure that WUWT will run another article to inform their readers about the change /sarc.

    • Yes, that would be a first.

    • As of 28th Feb, that’s a whole four long days ago, the moron on Wattsupia told us “global sea-ice extent is going to see an important jump this year.” All through that long long period, all of four-days long, Arctic SIE was “jumping” back to where it began having been on a downward path since 22nd Feb.. (JAXA, which is not as smoothed like NSIDC graphs it here.)
      2019 has not yet claimed a period of “lowest SIE for the time of year” as the three preceding years did (and still do along with 2012) but this “important jump” is, as of 28th Feb, reduced to the iciest Arctic since 2016. Golly! How underwhelming!!!
      Of course, what the moron probably had in mind was the measure of the maximum SIE of the year. While some do consider daily values to reckon this maximum, the usual measure is the monthly values and the moron may have been thinking along the same lines as he implored folk to “Stay tuned for the March results.” Mind, the way Arctic ice has been behaving over the last three years, 2019 may still claim least-icy March on record and least icy monthly-winter-maximum on record. There is no reason it couldn’t.

  29. Tamino, why start the dataset at around 1980? We have data from earlier.

    [Response: This post is about misleading claims from a post on WUWT. That post used satellite data, so I did too. Satellite data starts in 1979.

    I’ve examined earlier data in other posts. You’ll find links in some of the comments.]