
This is a graph of total global sea ice. The red line is this year - CarolineW
https://twitter.com/billmckibben/status/799783145356886016
======
avian
Google image search found this post as the source of the graph:

[https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/article.html](https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/article.html)

Edit: the post gives image credit to Wipneus from [https://forum.arctic-sea-
ice.net/index.php/topic,1457.msg942...](https://forum.arctic-sea-
ice.net/index.php/topic,1457.msg94293.html#msg94293)

~~~
dharma1
here is the og source

[https://forum.arctic-sea-
ice.net/index.php/topic,1457.1000.h...](https://forum.arctic-sea-
ice.net/index.php/topic,1457.1000.html)

------
glaberficken
Better source about the same phenomena (from 2nd Nov 2016):

[http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2016/11/sluggish-ice-
growt...](http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2016/11/sluggish-ice-growth-in-
the-arctic/)

Key points:

\- Analyses only the Arctic (as seems to be best practice)

\- Provides context by analyzing sea surface temperatures and atmospheric
circulation

------
igravious
Weather Underground analysis:
[https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/crazy-
cryosphe...](https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/crazy-cryosphere-
record-low-sea-ice-an-overheated-arctic-and-a-snow)

“There are weather and climate records, and then there are truly exceptional
events that leave all others in the dust. Such has been the case across
Earth’s high latitudes during this last quarter of 2016, on track to be the
planet’s warmest year on record. Sea ice extent and area have both plummeted
to record lows for this time of year in both the Arctic and Antarctic. Such
dramatic losses rarely occur at the same time, which means that the global
total of sea ice coverage is phenomenally low for this time of year. The
weirdness extends to midlatitudes: North America as well as the Arctic have
been bathed in unusual mildness over the last several weeks, while Eurasia
deals with a vast zone of above-average snowfall and below-average
temperatures.”

------
glaberficken
First question that came to my mind is how is this measured. I found the
answer here:
[http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#area_extent](http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#area_extent)

Which begs the next question: Are there other independent measurements that
confirm this?

------
imafish
Interesting how soon the discussion turned retard. So, somehow wind turbines
should be at fault? Jesus.

~~~
randomdata
The Twitter account that posted the image appears to discuss wind turbines
frequently. It comes across as a jab at that, perhaps related to an inside
joke between the two, rather than some commment based in what someone believes
is reality.

The thing about the internet is that every comment is assumed to be
facetious/sarcastic unless otherwise specified.

~~~
pohl
It's probably a joke at the expense of people like Congressman Joe Barton from
Texas, who famously said that wind was a finite resource and that harnessing
it would cause the world to be warmer.

------
tsaprailis
a)Where are these data from? Why does this gentleman that defines himself as
an environmentalist (possible conflict of interest?) not post the original
source? I'm not saying these are false but it would be nice to know the
source. The image reads NSIDC, where's the relevant link, and the relevant
analysis from them? What's the chance of error?

b)What does this mean? Will we get some super-storm or something similar? A
graph without the scientific theory that leads to an explanation is just an
opinion at best.

Again I'm not trying to say that this is not happening but the way this is
posted, to me seems to only grab attention, click-bait style.

~~~
stinos
_A graph without the scientific theory that leads to an explanation is just an
opinion at best_

Erm, the graphs just shows facts, no? Whether there's an explanation already
or not doesn't change anything about the observation. You are basically saying
'ok so an apple always falls down from a tree, but I cannot explain it, so
it's just an opinion that it falls down instead of up'

As for a): the data likely comes from [http://nsidc.org](http://nsidc.org)

~~~
tsaprailis
No, because if you read the twitter post it says: "Something is very very
wrong." Where is that derived from? What the scientific theory that predicts
that such a drop in the global ice sheet is very wrong? I'm not saying that
something could not be wrong, but giving a graph and claiming that something
is wrong is not very scientific. For all we know this could be very wrong,
mildy wrong, no wrong, good etc

EDIT: For a) I took a quick look at the site but couldn't locate the graph.
Again I'm not saying it's falsified, but pointing to the original source is
always nice. If nothing more we could get some additional details.

~~~
stinos
Ah I missed the part where it says 'something is very wrong'. Yes that makes
not much sense (or is very vague), based on just this graph.

I think the nsidc site just provides raw data, creating graphs is up to the
downloader of the data

~~~
polotics
It is not just opinion, all the models agree that once albedo drops enough, we
enter a self reinforcing new climate mode, and all the measurements eg. ice
cores from aeons past indicate that our 15'000 years "human civilization" and
progress rode a freak very much not normal occurence of very stable climate.

------
adwhit
If only someone had warned us! We would have prevented this!

Seriously though, interesting that climate change has been in the news a lot
since Trump got elected. As if anything useful was being done beforehand. As
if we previously had some kind of plan which was scuppered.

There is no plan, there never was. And there is no hope.

~~~
pohl
I don't disagree. But there was a plan, however inadequate:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement)

------
forgetsusername
I'm not a big follower of the climate change debate. So what exactly does this
mean? I see a decent sized gap in a time-series that goes back 40 years. There
were points during this year that had higher ice levels than other years. How
bad is this? Why? Is it unprecedented?

~~~
jfoutz
I wasn't aware there was a debate.

> So what exactly does this mean?

We get a northwest passage. [1]

> How bad is this?

Northwest passage is pretty sweet.

> Why?

faster shipping between east and west coast, not as far as going around south
america.

> Is it unprecedented?

yes.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage)

------
hanoz
Is there any lag in accurate measurement? What did the graph look like this
time last year?

------
qwertyuiop924
Hmmm... What's a good word to describe my feelings on this? Oh, there it is:

Fuck. We're fucked.

