Northern Regional Sea Ice Page

Is there any data on the ice in the Northwest Passage? I have a bet, and Environment Canada has stopped giving the data.

Anthony you have to add all the links Neven has listed here..
https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/
He did not have very nice things to say about you in is past the other day.

New Data Picture of the Arctic Ice coverage from E. Canada.
https://twitter.com/NJSnowFan/status/372338435815518209/photo/1

Here’s a more objective way to compare successive years. I use a low-pass filter to remove short term ‘weather’ noise. This result uses ALL the daily data.
Here I looked at all years since 2005 on a spaghetti plot and retained the two nearest to this years trace. 2013 so far is bounded by the data of 2008 and 2009.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=439
So far since 2005 , 05,06,09 had more ice than 2013, 08,11,12 had less.

I have a book at home called “Wilkie’s Weather” which was written in 1976 by a then famous Australian meteorologist called Alan Wilkie. It contains the following paragraph:
“In a previous chapter we saw that a very useful tool came into our possession in 1960 and that was the weather satellite. The picture of the earth taken by these satellites show ice and snow areas (as distinct from cloud) and after an examination of tens of thousands of pictures taken between 1960 and 1970 it has been established that the north polar ice cap has spread over an additional area of some 4 million square kilometres, which is thought-provoking to say the least, as it is an increase of 12% in ten years!”
I’m wondering if you know (or can find out) how the current amount of snow and ice compares to what it was in 1960.

Cryosphere Today, the source of most of these plots, also publishes a hockey stick version of sea ice history extending further back, with magical flatness pre-1950, as if such actually occurs in the messy real world of nature outside the CAGW narrative of climate not changing before modern world economic development. That can be seen at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg
When compared to actual archival history then in utter contrast (as in both the graphs and references about 3/4ths of the way down within http://img250.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=45311_expanded_overview2_122_15lo.jpg ), such implies that funded source of sleek plots, the Cryosphere Today public education/outreach (propaganda) site, has been compromised by enviro-activists acting at a frequent level of honesty for their particular subgroup of the population. Such is not shocking for a UIUC website which links to other CAGW movement websites while never linking to inconvenient ones.
I deliberately use the word compromised. It is a word sometimes used by military intelligence professionals having the right non-naive attitude in other context: If a source is known to have sent deliberately false data and done so with cunning and subtlety (as all the best liars know the most effective lie has mixed in some partial truth — or partial real data but a moderate percentage adjustment in trends etc), you shouldn’t auto-trust them on other claims without very explicit disclaimers.
A saying goes: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
I don’t know a saying for “fool me XY times in a row because it never occurs to me that known past lies should make me skeptical about other claims.”
Pointing this out is not an implausible “conspiracy theory” strawman as claimed in a typical argumentative response of defenders of enviro-activist groups: Outright conspiracies are rare in the real world when taking formal organization, when on something which would collapse with any or a few dissenting “whistleblowers,” and when against the inclinations of the majority in the group. None of those imply here. In contrast, activists acting on their natural inclinations and copying their heroes like Ehrlich & Mann & Hansen is just natural (not appropriate to call a conspiracy unless “used car salesmen” or “lawyers” or “politicians” would be called a conspiracy just because not always honest when counterproductive to their desires), while the CAGW movement has quite survived thousands of dissenting scientists.
The only magnitude to which they may be trusted (with heavy disclaimers foremost) is to the degree they are constrained by too blatant other observations, although such as cross-comparison to aerial photos is more complicated than it might seem when ice area isn’t just continuous. (For instance, generally the CAGW movement BSes even far more about sea ice volume than sea ice area, since the former is less cross-checkable, much like they go hogwild on unverifiable deep ocean average temperature trends while rewriting surface temperature plots too but more subtly).

Read about jet streams being accelerated by mid-latitude oxygen/ozone conversion which extends Rossby wave meander loops. Study the new theory on your desktop at this dedicated website:
https://www.harrytodd.org