Re: This comment, further up the comments, is utter fiction there is no such explorer or voyage of the period mentioned, someone did add this fictional reference to wiki but it has been removed, is there nothing deniers won’t do to try and make their false claims work. The force was weak with this Skywalker .

The St. Roch which had so easily travelled the Northrn Route of the NW Passage in 1944 was unable to enter the passage do to the increased ice levels. So the Canadians did not send any ships.

Based on history I expect the Arctic to refreeze this year much like in the later ’40’s.

kudos for purposely ignoring the previous known ships who navigated the Northwest passage without the help of GPS, Satellite Maps, or modern hulls and engines.

Even better you are willing to accept made up data instead of real life experiences!!

WAY TO GO!!!!!

My understanding was that Resolute was a joint project between Canada and the US.
The Canadian government was very sensitive at that time to attempts that the US had made to exercise authority over Canada in the Arctic after WWII.

I do agree, a publicity stunt to call attention to the human discards ( floating debris ) polluting our oceans is fine by me . Conservation of the ocean food sources is also worthy of such stunts . Lets see where this goes .

Shame, that man – Al Gore. He once wrote a really thoughtful book. Seems something about running for the Presidency, and being fraudulently put out of it, corrupted him badly.

Caleb: I love your attitude.

“The “extent” could therefore appear larger on a warm year, when the ice is basically broken slush, than a cold year, when it was basically a solid block?”

I think there is a general misconception that the arctic icecap is a solid frozen block that sits on top of the arctic pond. There is a tremendous amount of energy in the arctic currents that are tearing ice apart in one area and jamming it together to cause ridges and rubble in others. It never really is a solid block but is a moving mass or pack of ice that can shift on the order of multiple kilometers in on day. Here’s a great reference:

http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm

It’s about a 45 minute read but well worth it. Good luck with your farm. I’m happy to see WUWT reaching the heart of America.

Your quotes from the Ocean Watch site are the reason for my comment that should they decline to do “science” – it becomes a relatively harmless eco-stunt. Given the drubbing that AGW has been getting of late, and the apparent collapse of the Caitlin mission – I would be surprised if Ocean Watch did not amend their claims to be doing anything more than eco-stunt PR. Which I find mostly harmless provided they don’t spin an “ocean acidification is killing the whales” – type alarm.

It might be refreshing to see their “mission” amend itself from any mention of warming to reporting real pollutants. However, I understand your skepticism and suggest that it’s a perfect example of AGW blowback.

“Because most of the direct observations of sea ice (1870-1971 period) are from ships at sea, they are generally the most complete near the ice edge. The conditions north of the ice edge are often assumed to be 100% covered during this period. The satellite era has shown otherwise with concentrations between 70-90% frequently occurring well north of the ice edge in the post-1972 data. For this reason, we recommend using a measure of ice extent, when doing historical comparisons of hemispheric sea ice coverage for periods which include data prior to 1972. This is done by assuming that all grid points with ice concentrations greater than some threshold (15% is commonly used) is assumed completely covered by sea ice.”

The “extent” could therefore appear larger on a warm year, when the ice is basically broken slush, than a cold year, when it was basically a solid block?

I am glad the fellows at the University are humble and state their information should be “used with care.”

Now it is my turn to be humble, and confess I am very busy, and do not always have time to properly search and research, before opening my big mouth. Call me lazy if you will, but sometimes I just ask questions, and other people, on this site and on other sites, supply me with answers. Of course, they sometimes point out my cyber-laziness in the process, but I don’t mind that.

Now I’ll be non-humble: I am actually jealous of people who are able to spend so much time on their computers, because I have to plant a truck-garden which covers nearly an acre, plus feed goats and chickens, plus milk twice a day, plus sell eggs and milk, plus shovel manure, plus etc., etc., etc. When it comes to grunt-work, I’m not so lazy, and in fact could likely out-work 95% of the computer geeks who suggest I’m lazy.

Now I’ll be indignant: The only one who really has any right to suggest I’m lazy is my wife, but she only does so when she catches me sneaking off to my computer to see what’s happening on WUWT.

Farmers like me, who spend a lot of time outdoors, really need to know what is going on with the weather. We stand to lose a lot if we plant warmth-loving tomatoes on a cold year when few will ripen (which happened to me in 1993, post-Pinetubo.) If we hear warming is a “fact,” we may gamble and plant peach trees in a location where sub-zero wind-chill would have killed them in former times, (because fresh, soft peaches are fifty times better than the rocks you buy at grocery stores.) If it turns out warming is not a “fact,” the peach saplings are screwed, and so are we.

I’m always in a hurry, and sometimes the questions I ask may seem simple, blunt, and even rude, but I really do appreciate answers, especially when they are simple, blunt, and even rude.

anon (01:25:07) :

I keep getting that link you gave to University of Illinois data at

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/timeseries.1870-2007

thrown in my face, every time I express doubt that current ice levels are that much less than levels were in the past.

Does anyone know how they arrived at their ice-levels for pre-satellite years?

“Were they just making “educated guesses?”

Guesses, yes. How educated they were is anyones guess. My guess is its all bs.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/guide/Data/walsh.html

Does anyone know how they arrived at their ice-levels for pre-satellite years?

If you actually read what it says at that site you’d find out.

“While recognising arctic sea ice thickness and extent attracts the media centre stage, the status of the land locked Greenland ice sheet is perhaps of more pertinence in terms of future sea levels.”

See section 3.1 (pages 34-35), “Temperature,” of Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu’s paper, “Two Natural Components of Recent Climate Change,” here (as a 50-Mb PDF):
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/little_ice_age.php

He writes, “The upper part of Figure 11a shows the “warming” pattern during the last half of the last century, from about 1950 to about 2000 (Hansen et al., 2005). One can see that the most prominent change occurred in Siberia, Alaska, and Canada. Thus, in the continental Arctic, the warming rate was several times greater than the global average of 0.6°C/100 years or 0.3°C/50 years. There is no doubt that such a prominent change contributed statistically to the global average change in Figure 1a. On the other hand, contrary to the general trend of warming, note that cooling was in progress in Greenland over the same time period.

“It was a great surprise to find significant differences between the two diagrams in Figure 11b. If both were reasonably accurate, they should at least look alike. Ideally, the pattern of change modeled by the GCMs should be identical or very similar to the pattern seen in the measured data. … However, as can be seen in Figure 11b, there was no resemblance at all between the two, even qualitatively.”

This puts another ding in the U of I results (as being indicative of global warming).

“My father … says to this day that the Norton Sound and several other ships took a top secret ( to not upset the Soviets) turn West and made it through the Northwest Passage to the Bering Sea and back. If someone could get the logs declassified, there could be some very interesting infomation therein.”

Maybe a FOAI request would shake it loose. Or maybe you could contact a reporter at the AP or NYT or Washington Times and try to get them to do the research to back up the little scoop you’re offering him/her.

Caleb wrote:

“Alarmists whip this [Univ. of Illinois] data out and slap it on the table with deep conviction, as if it supplies some sort of irrefutable proof.”

If that U of I data doesn’t allow for the Norton Sound’s voyage, but it made it, that would put a ding in it.

I am loath to fill comments sections with lengthy posts, but I have for the sake of keeping this ” venture ” honest, placed a cut and paste of their mission here, to serve as an accurate record of what was written, in part, in the beginning. I have omitted parts of the complete sections only to save space – not because they speak counter to what is posted here. I encourage any / all readers to go to the site itself, now, and read all sections.

Project Description

The ocean is changing: seawater pH is falling, endangering coral reefs; warming waters are causing sea level to rise, imperiling low-lying areas; and Arctic sea ice is shrinking, threatening local wildlife. Changes in the marine environment affect not only inhabitants of the sea, but also have great ramifications for coastal communities and even inland populations.

These changes are heavily influenced by human activity, and consequently, we can each play an important role in improving the health of our oceans. We need to mobilize the citizens of the Americas to take action to protect our fragile oceans: our life on land is dependent on the health of our seas.

Our mission is to build awareness throughout the Americas so that citizens understand the precipitous changes that are occurring at the poles and along our coasts and what they can do to mitigate these changes.

Environmental/Scientific Goals:

* To build public awareness about the fragile nature of the ocean environment surrounding the Americas and what individuals can do to help,
* To document the impact of global climate change on the Arctic region and its potential impact on the coastal communities of both North and South America,
* To build awareness about ocean acidification and its impact on marine life,
* To mobilize sailors, boaters, school children, and all who love the oceans to engage in grassroots, community, regional and federal actions to protect the health of our ocean home at both the local and the global level.
* To promote the work of the SfS-supported film A Sea Change by collecting data relevant to ocean acidification during the expedition and helping individuals who follow the ATA expedition to understand why and how pH levels are changing and how this affects marine life.

Expedition Themes

* Environmental impacts of global climate change with particular focus on sea level rise, ocean acidification, and changing weather patterns.
* The rate of change in ocean CO2 concentration, water and air temperature, salinity, . . .

The Plan

Led by renowned sailor Mark Schrader, the expedition will depart from Seattle in May 2009 and will visit 31 ports in 11 countries over the course of 13 months. After completing 25,000 of sailing in a clockwise circumnavigation of the Americas, the vessel will return to Seattle in June, 2010.
The steel-hulled, 64-foot sailing vessel Ocean Watch will have a full time crew of four including a journalist and a documentary filmmaker. Throughout the expedition, a Pacific Science Center educator will be on board to facilitate education activities. In addition, ocean and atmospheric scientists will join different legs of the expedition to conduct research on board Ocean Watch.

You need to read much more carefully the stated goals of this ” mission ” .

You also need to study the site and read the types of ” scientists ” who will be joining the mission at various points.

Or, perhaps someone has already been doing some site maintenance ( editing ) ?

I’d be far more inclined to give a thumb up to the Ocean Watch adventure were it to decline to do science. At this point the only “science” they are claiming to do is recognize a decrease in alkalinity. As the reason for this is largely unknown, and it has yet to be shown to have any serious effect on species – it’s not ready for prime time.

But documenting the free floating oil on the sea, the trash in the water, the effects of urban runoff – are reasonable goals requiring the same consciousness raising. This would be a mission to promote stewardship. No science need be done outside measuring ocean content of real pollutants. If, before they start out, they reject ties to discredited “Climate” – and focus on the real problem of pollution – they will avoid the scrutiny of scientists skeptical that man-made CO2 is the reason for the Earth’s climate.

I see no reason to be skeptical of ocean stewardship. And in fact laud the effort.

**Clarification:
As the graph makes clear, it’s impossible that 1946 Arctic sea ice extent was anywhere near as low as 2007 levels.**
I do not see 1946 on that graph, so it is not clear to me. Satellites have been used for 30 years. The 1953 to 1979 source is not explained. If this is the same chart that was referenced in a discussion at CA, there is a lot of infilling of missing data. There was also a statement to use with caution. You cannot extrapolate backwards to the 1930’s and 1940’s.