Science Daily offers the Polarstern story today, in a comprehensive translation. Our detailed discussion was started here almost a week ago:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080811092458.htm

Again, the best way to monitor Arctic Sea Ice conditions day by day is the excellent overview offered here, as posted by several contributors in the past – one can enter any two dates for comparison:

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=08&fd=14&fy=2005&sm=08&sd=14&sy=2008

Right now, the obvious anomaly is a great deal of open water in the Beaufort Sea (creating sufficient fetch for wave build-up, making current oceanographic and seismic research more difficult). Three years ago, the open water was in the Chukchi and Laptev Seas – this illustrates circulation and wind patterns…

It will be interesting to observe what the next three weeks will bring.

For perspective, please check this outrageously flippant column by Thomas Friedman in the International Herald Tribune (I posted it before):

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/06/opinion/edfriedman.php

his words: “Remember: Climate change means ‘global weirding,’ not just global warming.”

we’ll see – Mr. Celebrity Columnist.

If I had time, I would research Traditional Ecological Knowledge, talking to Inuit Elders about the warm spells in the 20s and 30s, among others – anybody knows of any oral history accounts?

ulrich lobsiger

Science Daily offers the Polarstern story today, in a comprehensive translation. Our detailed discussion was started here almost a week ago:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080811092458.htm

Again, the best way to monitor Arctic Sea Ice conditions day by day is the excellent overview offered here, as posted by several contributors in the past – one can enter any two dates for comparison:

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=08&fd=14&fy=2005&sm=08&sd=14&sy=2008

Right now, the obvious anomaly is a great deal of open water in the Beaufort Sea (creating sufficient fetch for wave build-up, making current oceanographic and seismic research more difficult). Three years ago, the open water was in the Chukchi and Laptev Seas – this illustrates circulation and wind patterns…

It will be interesting to observe what the next three weeks will bring.

For perspective, please check this outrageously flippant column by Thomas Friedman in the International Herald Tribune (I posted it before):

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/06/opinion/edfriedman.php

his words: “Remember: Climate change means ‘global weirding,’ not just global warming.”

we’ll see – Mr. Celebrity Columnist.

If I had time, I would research Traditional Ecological Knowledge, talking to Inuit Elders about the warm spells in the 20s and 30s, among others – anybody knows about oral history accounts?

ulrich lobsiger

No need to get snarky. Remember that we are discussing science, which is a mix of theory and fact, or more to the point, evidence. You may have an animus against theory, but theories are indispensable to the practice of science.

I get it now. Model forecasts are considered facts. How silly of me.

The first para of the article in question includes this comment: “The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.”

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131

So if “not all” recent changes in the Arctic can be attributed to AGW, then by implication some of those changes can be attributed to AGW.

Further, my claim was that the results of the NASA research into Arctic Ocean circulation are consistent with AGW, and this claim is supported by the lead researcher’s comments:

“Morison cautioned that while the recent decadal-scale changes in the circulation of the Arctic Ocean may not appear to be directly tied to global warming, most climate models predict the Arctic Oscillation will become even more strongly counterclockwise in the future.”

In other words, the research is consistent with what AGW models say about Arctic Ocean circulation.

The fact that natural events may have contributed to Arctic ice loss in the 1990s does not rule out an AGW effect. Note that the lead researcher also refers to “longer periods of time”. AGW is a long-term trend, and this study is about decadal patterns. It is possible to have natural, shorter-term events occurring within a long-term AGW trend.

Absolutely nothing in the released NASA summary attributed ice loss to AGW. The quote you give, for example, does no such thing. Please explain, how the above attributes ice loss to AGW. It’s clearly only a suppositional statement and offers no proof. It takes an incredible stetch to say that this statement attributed ice loss to AGW.

Sure, it leaves the “door open” to AGW attributed ice loss, but that is a far cry from finding that the ice loss we see is caused by AGW. The ice loss is caused by upper Arctic Ocean circulation which is decadal in nature according to this study. There were no other conclusions offered.

This: “Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming,” said Morison. … is about as clear as it gets.

Did NASA prove that AGW is not decaying arctic ice? NO.

Did NASA find that significant natural cycles are at play? YES

The rational conclusion: At this point the relationship between AGW and ice loss is unknown and no understood.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/nasa-sees-arctic-ocean-circulation-do-an-about-face/”

Well, no. The original article says “not all” recent changes in the Arctic are the result of global warming. Further, the lead researcher is quoted as saying :

“The events of the 1990s may well be a preview of how the Arctic will respond over longer periods of time in a warming world…”

In other words, the results of this research are consistent with global warming, and certainly do not contradict it, as you imply.

doing further research through IPY links (International Polar Year – http://www.ipy.org), I came across many more alarmist projections, often in interviews with senior scientists.

You may also be interested in this Op-Ed from Greenland by a noted columnist: “Friedman: Learning to speak climate”

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/06/opinion/edfriedman.php –
sensationalist words from a VIP cruise!

as one who has experienced tremendous variability first-hand in SW and NW Greenland, the NW Passage and the Beaufort Sea over more than three decades, I can only shake my head…

Will archive Mr. Friedman’s epistle for future assessment.

I am currently in personal communication with active researchers in the field and agree that there are unusually large areas of open water, including in several NW Passage bottle necks. For perspective – we made it easily into Thule – 76 degrees N, through slushy and sparse pancake ice in August 1976. At that time, we were talking about a looming ice age.

Again, will reserve assessment of summer 2008 Arctic ice until after September minimum is reached, aiming at summarizing as many contributing factors as possible (observed and anecdotal, as opposed to extrapolations based on models – we’ve got more than enough of that!)

Here we have the anti AGW argument in a nutshell!

Fact 1: An overwhelming number of IPCC supporting individuals, pundits, and institutions, point to arctic ice reduction as proof of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Fact 2: Research by NASA suggests that arctic ice reductions are not caused by AGW or even GW (or G.W. BUSH for that matter)

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/nasa-sees-arctic-ocean-circulation-do-an-about-face/

Fact 3: AGW proponents consistently ignore the fact that arctic ice reductions are likely a natural occurrence, as suggested by NASA research, Instead, they use arctic ice reductions as one of the foremost propaganda tools in the IPCC bag of tricks.

The other thing I want to mention is that outliers like the temp spike in 98 and ice loss in 07 are rare events. Usually gradual trends predominate in ice records. So if things start going up, the next year will follow, and the same is for downward trends. Last winter the amount of ice that formed went up, not down. This could be a single event. But odds would be on a trend. My hunch is that this winter, we will get something similar, meaning a lot of ice. That would also mean that it will build on a higher minimum than 2007, resulting in more ice than last winter at maximum.

As someone who leans towards the AGW side, I would like to add my agreement to you that any such reports that suggest the entire arctic could become ice-free this year, in either English or German (or any other language) publications, is alarmist or mistaken beyond any rational extrapolation.

Keep in mind that I have seen only one such report; doubtless there are others, but the majority I have read only give an estimate of a ‘good chance’ of total arctic sea ice disappearance by 2013 at the *earliest* (although earlier than previous estimates of 2050), and only the possibility of an ice-free North Pole this year, which is not all that significant (even if it were to happen, which I doubt).

It does look like we’ll have an ice-free NWP this year, though, perhaps even earlier than last year (time will tell, of course).