Sunday Pop - Trib Style

From today's Tribune-Review:

And from the Cold Facts File, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center reports that sea ice over the Arctic Ocean grew until the last day of March. The annual ice melt began later than it has in 31 years, based on satellite data. And that can mean only one thing: More data for global warmers to fudge.

As we should all know by now, when it comes to climate science whatever the Tribune-Review says should be taken with a huge (do the kids these days still use the word "ginormous"?) grain of salt.

Look at what they wrote. Now look at what the National Snow and Ice Data Center actually says about the sea ice over the Arctic.

Some stuff the Trib left out.

Early in March, Arctic sea ice appeared to reach a maximum extent. However, after a short decline, the ice continued to grow. By the end of March, total extent approached 1979 to 2000 average levels for this time of year. The late-season growth was driven mainly by cold weather and winds from the north over the Bering and Barents Seas. Meanwhile, temperatures over the central Arctic Ocean remained above normal and the winter ice cover remained young and thin compared to earlier years. [emphasis added]

And:

Arctic sea ice extent averaged for March 2010 was 15.10 million square kilometers (5.83 million square miles). This was 650,000 square kilometers (250,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for March, but 670,000 square kilometers (260,000 square miles) above the record low for the month, which occurred in March 2006.

Ice extent was above normal in the Bering Sea and Baltic Sea, but remained below normal over much of the Atlantic sector of the Arctic, including the Baffin Bay, and the Canadian Maritime Provinces seaboard. Extent in other regions was near average.

Our friends at the Trib seemed to have missed what "ice extent" is. Here's the definition:

Sea ice extent is a measurement of the area of ocean where there is at least some sea ice. Usually, scientists define a threshold of minimum concentration to mark where the ice ends; the most common cutoff is at 15 percent. Scientists use the 15 percent cutoff because it provides the most consistent agreement between satellite and ground observations.

It's a number describing the total area where there's some sea ice. So if the whole arctic kept to the average and one area grew, then the ice extent grows - it's that above normal part that throws off the average.

So what was the average "ice extent" like? Luckily there's art:

See the blue line? That's the average. It's declining, isn't it?

Interesting that none of this information made its way onto the pages of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review.

These guys are something, huh?