New Milepost for Arctic Sea Ice Extent

Arctic Springtime Ice On The Mend
Guest post by Steven Goddard
Panasonic LUMIX Image of the day
Two of the Arctic ice sites show April 16 ice at recent record levels.  The Japanese site IJIS has a seven year April record going back to 2003, and reports 2009 levels at the highest extent on record for the date: 13,649,219 km2.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
The Danish Meteorological Institute has a five year database, and also shows April 16 ice extent as the highest in their short record.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_2009.png
A plot of April 16 extent made from the IJIS database shows that mid April ice extent has made a nice recovery from the 2004 low, increasing by more than 5%.
This is probably not coincidental with the fact that since 2003, global temperatures have been declining.
Next time Washington Post writers decide to bash George Will about ice, perhaps they should check their facts first.  The comment below from that piece shows just how irrational the thinking of climate “journalism” has become.

“citing “global” sea ice statistics like that is nearly meaningless in the context of global climate change”

Why would you use “global” statistics when examining a “global” problem?  What was George thinking of?
About these ads

153 thoughts on “New Milepost for Arctic Sea Ice Extent

  1. The Warmongers have recently let us know in a preemptive strike that actual sea ice extent means nothing. It’s all about “multi-year” ice now.

  2. Yes, but now even Sarah Palin is drumming the AGW drum telling the Polar Region is at risk.

    No matter how much ice records are recorded, we are all going down the drain.

  3. How does this look on the curve that’s usually used to compare the current year to the mean and the recent low of 2007? Does it show the extent trend-line crossing over the mean trend line? I suspect it does, but it would be nice to see an image of it.

  4. I was just looking at the NSIDC site and wondering where has all the melting gone, long time waiting. This is a poster child for nature, not man, ruling the climate, they have the Polar Bears, we have the Ice.

    Makes the news? Not a friggin chance.

    I think Minimum Ice Extent this year will be 20% over 2008. (for posterity)

    BTW the EPA played it’s endgame card today GHG pose a real and significant threat to humans and the environment… 60 Days for Comments ( actually 60 days for the Congress to ram through Cap and Trade) then The Lord Marshall (POTUS) shall state “convert now or fall forever”

    Time to choose to lay down and take it or stand up and do what is right. This is the time when the rubber hits the road friends.

    My reaction on my site (click on my name).

  5. Not to worry it will soon be all gone … July this year, for sure, the Arctic will be ice free. For sure, no kidding this time.

  6. The delay of consistent spring warming appears to be a hemispheric condition. It is actually quite worrying.

  7. Ice is fun but it doesn’t matter. We have passed the tipping point of the manipulation of science/data for political purposes and it will likely only accelerate from now on. There are many $thousand millions at stake, that buys a lot of consensus. Anyway, today is a great day, ’09 has gone ahead of ’03! The ice is dead…long live the ice.

  8. compelling facts on cyclical sea ice fluctuations, almost completely independent of man-made CO2 contributions.

    and the NYT weighs in on the big CO2-the-dangerous-pollutant news of today:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/science/earth/18endanger.html?hp

    Regulating CO2 is like regulating photosynthesis and respiration – hubris supreme, or is it Orwellian control? – how stupid can bureaucrats and politician get?

    Reducing CO2 emissions in the Western world won’t make an iota of difference, but it will set an unfortunate example on how to misinterpret natural systems.

  9. The new extent data will be pew pew’d as all new contradictory data is by the greens. All we can do is keep getting the word out. I would not worry over much about the EPA ruling. It would be bad in the short term but Americans vote with their wallet. As soon as the economic damage shows up in energy bills every month, there will be a paradigm shift in thinking.

  10. wait wait wait…..you actually think a major newspaper is going to check the facts first? facts dont sell! fear and creating a sense fo vunerability so that the mighty gonvernment can swoop in sells. thats why they made such a big fuss about 1998 being a major sign of global warming….and why every cold spell is only “weather noise”

  11. Roger means the extended trend for ’09 against ’79-’00. Hard to say if it will cross this year but is is steadily closing. The % ice covers are loosening up around the edges so my wild guess is that ’09 is about to reduce its convergence to nil and run parallel.

  12. Natural Gas prices up today. Reaction to EPAs insane ruling? Coal will become the Devil? Nuke power a long way off. fm

  13. 24 inches of snow forecast for the Denver area today, but temperatures are forecast to be some 20 degrees above normal where I live by Sunday. Currently looking like 90 degrees on Monday after weeks of temperatures well below normal.

  14. Look how skewed and manipulative this poll and article is

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/apr/17/climate-change-religion

    The question posed by the article is manipulative for a start. Are they talking about natural or anthropogenic climate change? Urban heat island effects or a global chemical change that is altering the climate for worse or better? There’s no detail.

    Why is such an question posed to the public to extract demographics in the first place? Were they searching for a demographic or ethnic group they could point the finger to and say “Look, unbelievers! They are backwards!”

    Well, they score a Fail. If they were attempting to make white middle American Christians look like morons, the way Hollywood and coastal elitism does, they failed because the world isn’t currently warming.

    The issue here is that they want to group any non-alarmist with religion. Well, let’s ask Hansen, Gore, Mann et al what their religious beliefs are and persecute them for it too. Let’s persecute Madonna for believing in alarmist messages while believing in Kabala. Let’s persecute Leo Di Caprio for being some kind of Buddhist. Let’s persecute Obama for his beliefs too. Why stop at middle American when you have the coasts too?

    Is there no end to the attempt to divide the public and turn people into frothing enemies so that a few can gain politically and financially from climate change hysteria?

    There has got to be a way for a massive group to take legal action here. The damage that is being caused to society just on a personal level is immense. They are creating hate.

  15. ” Ron de Haan (12:12:06) : ”

    Funny you should mention that. I happened to look at the “Hut” webcam just now and it had snapped a pyroclastic flow in progress down the valley. It was only about half way down the mountain, about where the waterfall is.

  16. It might be worth a post or two comparing and contrasting the various satellite measurement techniques – their accuracy, precision and longevity.

    The long term averages that keep getting mentioned are from a different satellite. There have been several quotes from professionals about AMSR-E being both more accurate and precise, but everyone then proceeds to continue measuring with the old yardstick. There’s no effort at calibrating the two.

  17. Well apparently more people are starting to see that the ice is defying predictions.

    Meanwhile there’s two major stories that could send shockwaves when it comes to the fall of the AGW agenda

    http://www.iceagenow.com/French_Reversal_on_climate_policy.htm

    It includes Australia possibly dumping their carbon trading scheme for a period of time and trying again later (unless they start thinking CO2 may actually be a good thing)

    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25342527-421,00.html

  18. Despite the evidence that Artic ice is on the increase, we get this kind of nonsense

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/apr/17/alaska-migration-climate-change

    In Alaska, climate change is creating an unforeseen humanitarian crisis. Arctic sea ice – which had protected communities from coastal erosion and flooding – is rapidly disappearing and signalling a radical transformation of this northern ecosystem. Scientific observations during the summer of 2007 documented a new record low.

    They start off by talking about the present but then when they have to cite science they go back two years. WTFUWT?

    REPLY: Don’t complain here, write to the editor and the reporter and call them on it. – Anthony

  19. Steven,

    The reason why the Cryosphere folks caution against placing too much emphasis on the “global” statistic of global sea ice is that it is aggregating two differently-phased trends, so it will exhibit considerably more short-term variability in the anomaly data than either of the component trends in isolation.

    On a related note, what would you consider a reasonable timeframe to evaluate a trend in sea ice? 10 years? 5 years? 2 years? Taking the same approach as the recent temperature graphs from Lucia’s site, here are all three:

    Ten year anomaly trends in sea ice by end date:

    Five year anomaly trends in sea ice by end date:

    Two year anomaly trends in sea ice by end date:

    You can see that using 10 year trends, global and arctic sea ice are clearly negative, and the last two years have done little to change that. Using 5 year trends, arctic sea ice is still strongly negative while global sea ice is right about zero. Using 2 year trends, well, everything has been increasing rapidly except for Antarctic sea ice. That said, the shorter period you use in determining the trend, the more noise there is in the data. If you choose to use a trend less than 10 years, you can pretty much cherry-pick a starting date to make any point you want. Using more than 10 years of data, you always get a declining trend in arctic and global sea ice.

    You can see this clearly if we look at the slope of the trend in sea ice anomaly from each month to the present:

  20. [bobdobbs@fuckyou.com is not a valid email address - permanent ban on a first comment, a new record. - Anthony]

  21. Just curious.

    Why is there somuch mountainous-like terrain on one year old ice in the photo above and others coming from Catlin?

    Oh and since CO2 is now dangerous to all life on Earth, we are all dangerous to life on Earth because we all emit carbon dioxide.

  22. All: As expected the EPA has announced that they intend to regulate carbon dioxide and five other gases. Everything said here is meaningless and needs to be focused on detailed rebuttal’s to the EPA and your congressional delegation within the next sixty days. Congress can be bypassed with regulation.

    By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 2 mins ago

    WASHINGTON – The EPA on Friday declared that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases sent off by cars and many industrial plants “endanger public health and welfare,” setting the stage for regulating them under federal clean air laws.

    The action by the Environmental Protection Agency marks the first step toward requiring power plants, cars and trucks to curtail their release of climate-changing pollution, especially carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

    EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said while the agency is prepared to move forward with regulations under the Clean Air Act, the Obama administration would prefer that Congress addressed the climate issue through “cap-and-trade” legislation limiting pollution that can contribute to global warming.

    Limits on carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases would have widespread economic and social impact, from requiring better fuel efficiency for automobiles to limiting emissions from power plants and industrial sources, changing the way the nation produces energy.

    In announcing the proposed finding, Jackson said the EPA analysis “confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations” and warrants steps to curtail it.

    While EPA officials said the agency may still be many months from actually issuing such regulation, the threat of dealing with climate change by regulation could spur some hesitant members of Congress to find another way to address the problem.

    “The (EPA) decision is a game changer. It now changes the playing field with respect to legislation,” said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., whose Energy and Commerce subcommittee is crafting broad limits on greenhouse emissions. “It’s now no longer doing a bill or doing nothing. It is now a choice between regulation and legislation.”

    Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee responsible for climate legislation, said EPA’s action is “a wake-up call for Congress” — deal with it directly through legislation or let the EPA regulate.

    Friday’s action by the EPA triggered a 60-day comment period before the agency issues a final endangerment ruling. That would be followed by a proposal on how to regulate the emissions.

  23. Eric Anderson (11:29:59) :

    But when you look at the slope for the Artic ice, it might go over the average sometime in May.

  24. Zeke Hausfather asks:

    On a related note, what would you consider a reasonable timeframe to evaluate a trend in sea ice? 10 years? 5 years? 2 years? Taking the same approach as the recent temperature graphs from Lucia’s site, here are all three:

    120 years.

  25. Here’s a thought. At what level are they going to classify CO2 as being dangerous? Maybe they will pick Hansen’s figure of >350 PPM. In that case someone ought to take along a CO2 meter to a typical congressional committee room since most small rooms crowded with people, assuming they are alive and respiring, will easily exceed 350 PPM after a few hours. That way when the meter peaks beyond 350 the operator can declare the meeting adjourned on account of CO2 and kick everyone out.

    After a few of their ever so important meetings are disrupted maybe even our dimwatt legislative branchers and their odious aides can realize how silly the panic is. Hey, maybe Rep. Waxman can be nicknamed “CFL.” He is not very bright and takes a while to wake up in the committee room.

    Sorry, I am not usually so cynical but I have just about reached my CO2 tolerance limit and need a breath of fresh air.

  26. Given that the ocean currents flowing into the Arctic come mainly from the Barents Sea around Svalbard, it is no surpise the ice extent is now rising again after the AMO has gone negative now after being strongly positive for the past 5 years.

    Arctic Sea Ice Extent anomaly versus the AMO back to 1972.

    AMO back to 1854.

  27. IS HENRY WAXMAN SMARTER THAN A FIFTH GRADER?

    Here’s a sampling of the great minds that are setting environmental policy. This is from an interview of Waxman by Tavis Smiley

    http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200904/20090413_waxman.html

    “We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point – they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap.”

    All that evaporation! What’s a denialist going to do. Pretty soon the tundra under the arctic ice cap is just going to rise into the atmosphere when it’s no longer held down. Think of the chaos. I guess I now understand how we will know when we’ve arrived at the “tipping point”

    Can you believe the ignorance!

  28. Waxman Won’t Compromise on 20% Carbon Cap in Climate Measure
    By Christopher Stern

    April 17 (Bloomberg) — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman said he won’t compromise on his proposed 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gases over the next decade in the face of criticism from lawmakers who say the economy could suffer.

    “I want to keep those caps in place,” Waxman said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt” airing this weekend. “It’s what the scientists are telling us we must do” to avoid a global catastrophe, he said.

    …………..

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aaE9Lr1448tM&refer=home

  29. People still expect scientific facts that refute government propaganda to be reported by the mainstream media? That hasn’t happened since 1984-the-Manual.

  30. Just a shout out to bobdobbs!!! Can you see me smiling and waving? The time for honoring yourselves is at an end.

  31. 1. Has anyone whispered the word ‘photosynthesis’ into POTUS’ ear?
    2. Has POTUS decided that corn hates carbon dioxide?
    3. Would a war on forest burning be a better idea than Cap N Trade?
    4. Will Michelle’s vegetable garden grow solely on oxygen?
    5. Will high school biology classes be forced to revise the textbooks on ‘the carbon cycle’? [I think that read: plants, algae, plankton etc eat it; things eat plants; humans eat stuff and plants; EVERYONE 'breathes' a bit of seeohtwo] – NATURE IS EVIL!
    6. Europe’s going for CCS – an English MEP’s latest newsletter says that he is the ‘political guru’ for this – carbon capture/storage technologies. That’s where we’re headed right now.

    Any court of law willing to uphold a ruling that ‘laws passed based on fraudulent axioms have no validity’?

  32. John S. (12:46:27) :

    When you consider that we have about 5% of CO2 in our alveoles (alive people anyway!!!), then we are all criminals.

  33. Looking at the IARC-JAXA graph, I expect this year’s line will not be all that notable for the next four months or so. Now, in mid-September, if this year’s trace lies closer to that of 2003 than 2008, then things’ll start to look really interesting. In the meantime, every little squiggle of this year’s line will excite great comment, one way or the other.

  34. Aron (12:17:37) : “Look how skewed and manipulative this poll…”

    Thank for the tip! Guardian forgot to mention that the more educated you are the more you tend to not believe in AGW.

    Headline proposal: Just what is it with educated people and global warming?

    This EPA move I think is tremedously dangerous! Two not new articles:

    6 March: “Anti-CO2 Campaign Like An Atom Bomb On U.S. Economy” by professor Fred Singer. It (just slightly naive?) starts like this:

    “Presumably following White House directions, the EPA is ready to issue an “Endangerment Finding” on carbon dioxide, paving the way for regulations to control CO2 emissions. But with over one million “major stationary sources,” a full-blown application of the Clean Air Act would be the equivalent of an atomic bomb directed at the US economy — all without any scientific justification. Hence there is speculation that the White House strategy is to use the threat of EPA regulation to force Congress to take action.”

    http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=321228358224458

    So now the bomb is dropped? As non-American ‘ve a limited understanding of what the consequenses are, but after all the congress make laws, or? :) Can they decide to block the decision – or consequenses of – the EPA decision? Also the no-limit-spending Obama I guess is a quite scary situation.

    3rd March: “Destroying Both Jobs And Energy Security” by Newt Gingrich. About the general lack of initiative to take care of even the obviously cheap and necessary energy and the harm to US economy this means.

    http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=320977215507791

  35. Replying to…

    Roger Knights (12:51:33) :

    Waxman Won’t Compromise on 20% Carbon Cap in Climate Measure
    By Christopher Stern

    April 17 (Bloomberg) — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman said he won’t compromise on his proposed 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gases over the next decade in the face of criticism from lawmakers who say the economy could suffer.

    [...]

    Waxman himself said it would suffer…

    “If we raise the price of energy, which will happen if we’re reducing the amount of carbon emissions, and industries have to figure out how to live in a carbon-constrained environment, they are going to have to figure it out because it’s in their profitable interest to figure it out.”
    –Tavis Smiley Interview

    Waxman must not only have flunked science and geography…He must have flunked economics too!

  36. There’s nothing in that chart that leads me to believe that the AMO won’t remain, basically, positive for another 30 years, or so.

    Hitching your anti-AGW wagon to Arctic Sea Ice might be a bad short-term proposition.

  37. While it’s true that 2009 is back to the level of 2003, if you look at the chart you can see that the spread of the extents narrows shortly until about Jun then it starts to disperse. So we have about two months till the real action starts.

    FYI the JAXA mean for today 13.20654 million km2 so 2009 is ahead of the average by about 442,682 km2

  38. This morning was a grand morning for Aussie press.

    The Australian printed this article

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25349683-601,00.html

    “Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking”

    with an endline:

    “A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded. ”

    Then to cap it off the Sydney Morning Herald’s Miranda Devine has a go at the Warmanistas.

    “Planet doomsayers need a cold shower”

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/planet-doomsayers-need-a-cold-shower-20090417-aa4s.html?page=-1

    with this gem:

    “” the University of Melbourne’s Professor David Karoly declared: “Loss of jobs is important but loss of life is really important”.

    True enough, but where is the evidence that climate change has killed a single Australian?””

  39. Here’s a sampling of some arctic rim stations today:

    Station Date UTC Time Temp C
    Cold Bay, AK 4/17/2009 19:53 -2
    Mekuryuk, AK 4/17/2009 19:36 -6
    Nome, AK 4/17/2009 19:53 -7
    Barrow, AK 4/17/2009 19:53 -18
    Pevek, Siberia 4/17/2009 3:00 0
    Anadyr, Siberia 4/17/2009 19:00 -7
    Tiski, Siberia 4/17/2009 19:00 -14
    Khatanga, Siberia 4/17/2009 18:00 -16
    Tuktohaktuk, Canada4/17/2009 19:00 -19
    Kuglugtuk, Canada 4/17/2009 19:00 -19
    Resolute, Canada 4/17/2009 19:00 -18
    Alert, Canada 4/17/2009 19:00 -23
    Clyde River, Canada 4/17/2009 19:55 -16
    Thule, Greenland 4/17/2009 19:00 -16
    Longyearbyen, Svalbard 4/17/2009 19:50 -19
    Hammerfest, Norway 4/17/2009 19:50 -5

    Ice loss in the near future in the near future is unlikely to start until there are at least a few days of above freezing temps. Most loss will come from the lower latitudes, i.e., St. Lawrence region, Baffin Bay/Newfoundland and Hudson Bay. IMHO I expect the current trend line to continue until there is some significant warming or current/winds change.

    It will be fun to watch and see the AGW crowd squirm.

  40. Arctic sea ice is the least of our worries.

    The EPA has “dropped one shoe.” Hearings on this “dropping” will be held:
    May 18, 2009, at the EPA Potomac Yard Conference Center, Arlington, VA; and
    May 21, 2009, at the Bell Harbor International Conference Center in Seattle, WA.
    The report, Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act, can be read at http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html

    On April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act.

    The Administrator is proposing to find that the current and projected concentrations of the mix of six key greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. This is referred to as the endangerment finding.

    The Administrator is further proposing to find that the combined emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFCs from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmospheric concentrations of these key greenhouse gases and hence to the threat of climate change. This is referred to as the cause or contribute finding.

    Technical Support Document for the Proposed Findings (PDF) (171 pp, 2.8MB

  41. On another note: Arctic ROOS shows the 2009 area at this time almost within 1 STD of the 1979-2007 average.

    Chart is here

  42. Kum Dollison (13:37:52) :

    Hitching your anti-AGW wagon to Arctic Sea Ice might be a bad short-term proposition.

    How about hitching up to reality instead the prayers for disaster flowing across the lips of the doomsayers, all the “science” of catastrophe is fiction, it is made up. Hansen and Al Gore are praying for a total collapse in Arctic Sea Ice in less than 4 years from now as a form of vindication! Just the planet seems to have other plans, as far as interpreting the data my opinion is that the Arctic is Recovering and my answer to the trend watchers is simple… if one can ride the slide one can climb the ladder.

    Look at the real world not the soothsayers of Armageddon, it is time for the true science to stand up and be recognized over the “crystal ball gazers” passing opinion off as fact and driving hysteria among the masses with irrelevant claims of settled science and consensus driven horrors of man made weather events.

    Just like ancient civilizations we cower down and offer up sacrifices to the heavens and the Gods of Air and Water to not wipe us off the face of the earth for our transgressions, these are in the form not of flesh but of treasure passed to our benevolent leaders to act to save us.

    Into this crowd wade the dictators and false prophets promising a way to redemption or a path to appeasing the Gods who we angered with our disrespect for nature, holding themselves up as the vessels of truth and justice. Denouncing all who disagree and training legions of fanatical followers to spread their “truth”. Pointing to other events of nature as portents and signs of the coming crisis.

    This has been happening in civilizations since the dawn of men coming together in tribes, now we just use science instead of mysticism and authority via measures of recognition or awards instead of claims of deeds like making the rains come. Which are the functional equivalent in our modern society.

    Ultimately the truth will be revealed and as all false prophets and messengers of doom, this is not the first or the last time some have moved in this manner among us, and these to will be cast out of society and the social narrative of civilized men.

    We will then forget until the cycle repeats itself just like climate change.

  43. I just did a search and could not find a single headline about “Historic Record High Arctic Ice Extent.” I guess the media is not paying attention. I would hold my breath but the limited CO2 exhaust would be offset by the methane from my rotting body.

  44. The EPA’s Technical Support Document:

    http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/TSD_Endangerment.pdf

    It appears they hope they wont have to defend it though: “Notwithstanding this required regulatory process, both President Obama and Administrator Jackson have repeatedly indicated their preference for comprehensive legislation to address this issue and create the framework for a clean energy economy.”

    Let the public comment period begin.

  45. A wager on our future
    Artic ice so seem to be at recent record levels… but signals coming from the oppisite side of the globe show a different reality. Wilkins Ice Shelf in Antarctic peninsula is at risk. Lots of videos and scientific data confirm this. Is there a connection? Which is the right evidence to follow? Both scientists who assert or deny global warming and climate changes as a result of human activities can appear wright or wrong at the eyes of readers. Whom should we believe? What should we do?
    A simple hint can come following Pascal’s Wager: if the attitude which corresponds most to truth can’t be checked out then we could at least try to find out the more rational one. Pascal’s Wager is an attempt to justify belief in God not with an appeal to evidence for his existence but rather with an appeal to self-interest. A similar wager (let’s call it a sort of Wager on Survival) can be applied in the case of climate changes. We can’t possibly know the right attitude until maybe it’s too late. Just today in Italy on La repubblica appeared the following news: ONU 2.5°C more and cycle of trees will reverse – According to the International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) if earth’s temperature will rise of 2.5°C more then forest will cease to lower CO2 emissions.
    So, just from a rational point of view, in which way do we loose less? ignoring the problem and facing the possible consequences of that? or maybe taking actions to make our world a better place? The last option shows less drawbacks, and if the many voices rising at the moment and the Antartic Ice melting are just false signals, then we can at least try to live in a more healthy and sensible world.

    http://italianopinionist.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/antarctic-peninsula-and-ice-melting-a-wager-on-our-future/

  46. Heretic, I’m just saying, it’s interesting to watch, but it could turn on you in a heartbeat. It’s probably better to stick with the Science (and temperature.)

  47. “…six key greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—”

    Why did they leave out water vapor?

  48. Kum wrote:

    “Hitching your anti-AGW wagon to Arctic Sea Ice might be a bad short-term proposition.”

    Who is doing that? The challenge is that there is so much complete nonsense spouted by alarmists — much of it based on slightly-off facts, some completely made up — that it is a full time job just to counter all the nonsense one issue at a time. As you well know, there have been many recent pronouncements by alarmists about the imminent disappearance of the Arctic sea ice. It is completely valid and appropriate to challenge such pronouncements when it becomes obvious that they were not based on sound scientific principles, but rather are nothing more than PR. Challenging particular claims does not mean anyone is hitching their wagon one particular claim.

    Keep in mind it is the CAGW crowd that needs to demonstrate the alarming and extravagent claims made, not the other way around.

  49. Kum wrote:

    “Heretic, I’m just saying, it’s interesting to watch, but it could turn on you in a heartbeat.”

    Fair enough, and a good point.

  50. Re:janama (13:48:55)

    Great to see some truth being published. And to think even the Sydney Morning Herald is coming on board…streuth!

  51. heresy

    Pronunciation: \ˈher-ə-sē, ˈhe-rə-\
    Function: noun
    Inflected Form(s): plural her·e·sies
    Etymology:
    Middle English heresie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin haeresis, from Late Greek hairesis, from Greek, action of taking, choice, sect, from hairein to take
    Date:
    13th century

    1 a: adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma b: denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church c: an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma

    2 a: dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice b: an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards

  52. Tom in Texas,

    why did they leave out water vapor?

    because water is a naturally occurring substance that has a natural cycle on our planet is necessary to life. to regulate it as a pollutant would be insane. …oh wait.

  53. Adam Gallon (14:33:58) :

    One part of the AMSR-E graph intrigues me.
    Why is there a pronounced upwards kick around early June, visible for 2003, ‘6 & ‘8?

    I have asked the same question here (some time last year), but I don’t think it was answered. Perhaps an instrument/measurement artifact or some kind of calibration, the ice doesn’t “kick” like that the same time every year. The DNMI graph is similar overall, but has no “early June kick”.

  54. Carsten Arnholm, Norway (15:13:04) :

    Maybe the satellites hit a gravitational speed bump every June…

    But yeah, it is stange. Maybe we should look at the satellite logs. Could it be a yearly calibration?

  55. William (14:14:53) :

    “I just did a search and could not find a single headline about “Historic Record High Arctic Ice Extent.” I guess the media is not paying attention. I would hold my breath but the limited CO2 exhaust would be offset by the methane from my rotting body.”

    Whoa, big fella! Recognize that this is a record for this date from the IJIS dataset which only goes back to through 2003. While it’s a nice milestone, it’s not anything of historic record high proportions, at least for now.

  56. I already got an e-mail in to the cotrnact page of the EPA to tell them how insane, absurd, stupid and politically motivated that CO2 decision is.

    That’ll fix ‘em :^)

  57. Kum Dollison (14:26:46) : “<Heretic, I’m just saying, it’s interesting to watch, but it could turn on you in a heartbeat.”

    There is primarily no scientific reason i follow this (maybe a secondary not direct reason to bring science to order again). Anything can happen with this ice, and the AGW will not be more true if something happens to it the coming years or decades. If we got half a degree warmer in 30 years and the Arctic ice melts completely I think that is fine! The Arctic Sea had no ice 6000-7000 years ago,…

    http://www.ngu.no/en-gb/Aktuelt/2008/Less-ice-in-the-Arctic-Ocean-6000-7000-years-ago

    …and also about 120000 to 125000 years ago. Greenland had no ice along its coasts 700 years ago and then open areas of an agricultural society now lies under very thick ice. So I welcome the ice melting development; in particular it isn’t a catastrophe! :) You are really stupid if you can’t see that an ice free Arctic sea is the very normal condition on Earth the last 50 or 100 million years. Unfortunately the last 2 million years has been one of the coolest period the Earth has experienced.

    So this is important for me because you put so much in it — no much else makes it important, although oceanography and details in science is always to some point interesting.

    By the way it’s interesting that you put your only hope for “a catastrophe” — which is what you falsely call the melting of ice in the Arctic — on AMO. You forget the silent sun, and that the galactic cosmic rays affected by the sun affects low level clouds with a correlation significance of more than 99.5%; Palle/Butler/O’Brian (2004) :

    http://www.arm.ac.uk/preprints/433.pdf

    Don’t forget that also the PDO gets negative, which affect the global temperature a lot more then AMO.

    Dollison: “It’s probably better to stick with the Science (and temperature.)”

    Yes. And your obsession with melting ice isn’t good science, or – rather – science at all.

  58. Anthony, any chance you could start a new thread on the EPA’s Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings?

    It is clear from the first two pages of the Proposed Findings that this is taken directly from the catastrophic global warming alarmism playbook.

    http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/GHGEndangermentProposal.pdf

    Also, the Contribute Findings seem to be directed squarely at the auto industry. I haven’t been through the 133 pages yet, but this looks to be problematic on several fronts.

  59. Since we, as humans, are a producer of CO2, will
    the EPA regulate us? Maybe we can buy carbon
    credits. If you can’t afford them…well, too bad!

  60. Kum Dollison (14:26:46).

    To put it short: I have no idea of ice development that prove any science, but I think it would be fine if your Arctic ice focused anti-science suffering from more ice. It’s always good when anti-science suffers.

  61. Quite obviously, natural CO2 is ‘good’ as it feeds the plants. Man-made CO2 is ‘bad’ because it kills trees, polar bears and the like. Any fool can see that.

    One can convert some bad CO2 into good by purchasing carbon offsets from the-one-who-sounded-the-alarm, or by a massive carbon tax. So there isn’t anything to worry about as long as we act now. (before the planet cools off by itself).

    Is there a graph that shows maximum Arctic ice as measured over the past 30 years rather than average? I only see data for the past 10 years. Prior to 79 is guesswork.

  62. Kum: I’ve read, on this site, statements that various multi-decadal ocean oscillations have entered their cool phase and that this should result in a rebound of arctic ice for several decades.

  63. Magnus, I’m confused. Was

    Yes. And your obsession with melting ice isn’t good science, or – rather – science at all

    aimed at me?

    You’re using my name, but quoting comments I never made.

    Let me clarify. I think it’s fine to “counter-punch” with favorable ide data when the “alarmists” get all wound up on ice disappearing, polar bears dying, and 100 ft sea level rises; but I think it should be considered a refutation of “still more silliness,” and not something on which to, substantially, base our argument. We know enough about the effects of ocean currents, winds, and AMO influences not to get our cause “too” heavily invested in something this unpredictable.

  64. Does it occur to anybody that the concept of a global sea ice condition is absurd.

    The amount of “global sea ice” outside the arctic and antarctic regions is about zero +/- a 3:1 fudge factor. that is jiust the part of the globe from -60 to + 60. Come to think of it there’a virtually no global sea ice outside the arctic circles.

    This time they’ve bitten off more than they can chew. Unless you toss your scotch on the rocks overboard while on a Hawaiian cruise; there is no global sea ice anywhere near you.

  65. I think we need a pro bono lawyer to sue the EPA requiring them to include water vapor among the regulated GHGs unless they can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that water vapor is NOT a green house gas.

  66. Mike had it right, everyone should demand they include dihydrogen monoxide in the GHG list. Remember in high concentrations it causes death. Addictive too.

  67. George E. Smith (16:12:11) :

    I think we need a pro bono lawyer to sue the EPA requiring them to include water vapor among the regulated GHGs unless they can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that water vapor is NOT a green house gas.

    Yeah, but then they’ll tax the nuke plant cooling towers!
    This whole things got me steamed! Oops…more tax!

  68. Mike Lorrey (15:44:02) :

    “PLEASE tell me the EPA is finally regulating the emission of dihydrogen monoxide….”

    With the proliferation of dihydrogen monoxide in environment, you would think EPA would wake up. It’s in our reservoirs, our lakes, our oceans… you can even find large amounts of it now in our atmosphere, and yet even the EPA fails to take any action to prevent this from reaching our homes and businesses.

    Good news however. I have been seeing on environmental websites that this scourge is disappearing, and it may be only decades before dihydrogen monoxide can be eliminated from the environment. Maybe the environmentalists and the EPA can once again coordinate to eliminate yet another menace once and for all.

  69. Possible “unintended consequences”* of polar ice melting?

    http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/gerhard/index.htm

    Geological Perspectives of Global Climate Change: Introduction and
    Overview*
    By
    Gerhard, L.C.,1 W.E. Harrison, 1 and B.M. Hanson2

    “…Second-order climate controls: Distribution of oceans and continents
    on the surface of the earth controls ocean currents, which distribute
    heat. This fundamental concept (Gerhard and Harrison, Chapter 2,
    GPGCC, 2001) explains the 15o–20oC climate variations over hundreds
    of million of years (Lang et al., 1999; Frakes, 1979, p. 203). Such
    variations are exemplified by the two major earth cycles between
    glacial “icehouse” and warm “greenhouse” states. The late Precambrian
    “icehouse” evolved into the Devonian “greenhouse,” then the
    Carboniferous “icehouse,” then the Cretaceous “greenhouse,” which
    evolved to the present “icehouse” state. Redistribution of heat around
    the earth is determined by the presence of equatorial currents that
    keep and thrust warm water masses away from the poles. Blockage of
    such currents, which permits the formation of gyres that move warm
    waters to the poles, creates the setting that allows continental-scale
    glaciation….”

    If there is any validity to this, we better pray for ice increase. The alternative is to flee south while the glaciers advance. ;)

    Second-order climate control is by the distribution of continents and
    oceans upon the planet (Gerhard and Harrison, Chapter 2, GPGCC,
    2001) (Figure 1). The earth has undergone several cycles of icehouse
    and greenhouse climates, from at least the Vendian (late Precambrian)
    through the present. Glacial activity is reasonably interpreted at
    various locations as early as about 3 billion years ago (Crowell, 1999).
    Temperature variability between the colder and warmer climates is
    likely between 10O and 15OC (for instance, see Frakes, 1979, p. 170,
    figures 6-7). Gerhard and Harrison theorize that when continental
    landmasses are positioned so that equatorial oceanic circulation
    patterns exist, general global climate conditions are warmer.
    Conversely, when landmasses are positioned so as to impede or
    prevent equatorial circulation, “icehouse” conditions prevail. When
    warm waters are moved to polar regions, high rates of evaporation
    create continental glaciers and facilitate widespread global cooling.
    Conversely, strong and persistent equatorial currents preclude heat
    transfer to high latitudes, and warm conditions prevail. These
    relationships help to illustrate that thermal energy or heat is
    transferred around the earth much more effectively by oceanic
    circulation patterns than by atmospheric circulation.

  70. Roger, we’ve all seen some graphs that show a very strong correlation between the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and Global Temperatures; and, it looks very much like the PDO has turned negative.

    I was referring to the chart:

    that Bill Illis (whose work I greatly admire, and respect, by the way) posted, above, of the correlation of the AMO, and Arctic Sea Ice. It looks like a pretty strong correlation also.

    Here’s the rub. Everytime I look at a chart of the AMO “I” see a 45, or 50 year Oscillation. Maybe it’s just “Me,” but I certainly wouldn’t bet the house on what the Actic Sea Ice does “next” year. I would hate to see the “Skeptics” make Arctic Sea Ice a FOUNDATION of their argument, just to get “double-crossed” by an unfavorable wind/wave pattern at the wrong time.

    I would Much rather bet on (and Talk about) the negative PDO holding temps below 1998, or 2005.

  71. Jim F (16:35:08) :

    Possible “unintended consequences”* of polar ice melting?

    What were the intended consequences?

  72. NYT sent me a subscription offer. I sent it back with a copy of the IJIS chart and a note:

    “Print this diagram on your front page and then we’ll talk. Your one-sided handling of ‘Global Warming’ is rapidly making you even more irrelevant than you already were.”

  73. mmm I could be embarrased by my next question.

    Would it be possible for Mr Watts to put a clock on his web site, not wishing to be biased but I think it should be British Summer time.

    If Mr Watts you do so, I promise to give free time to assist with some common spelling mistakes. Such as Favorite and Meter.

    Whats in it for you, nothing, whats in it for me I suppose a warm comfort?

  74. Caption to a photo in my local ISP providers news website,
    ” Cutting greenhouse gases by 70 percent this century would spare the planet the most traumatic effects of climate change, including the massive loss of Arctic sea ice, a study said Tuesday.”

    Yes, they ARE out there. I teach Science and I get students who are convinced that the Moon landings were faked – they saw the ‘truth’ on a TV documentary and they are so convinced – they cannot be bothered to actually look at the evidence to disprove it. As to the “Melting Arctic Ice”, a sound byte from the TV trumps all reason and the evidence accumulated on this site to the contrary. It will take decades of cooling before the AGW crowd get supplanted – then what are we left with to rebuild ?.

  75. D. King (15:48:15):

    Since we, as humans, are a producer of CO2, will<the EPA regulate us? Maybe we can buy carbon credits. If you can’t afford them…well, too bad!

    Just wandering:

    In average, an adult breathes 8 035 200 times per year.

    An adult emits about 401 760 000 000 ppmV of CO2 per year through breathing.

    401 760 000 000 ppmV of CO2 are equal to 626 745.6 Kg of CO2 per year.

    Wow! It could be a very profitable business!

  76. Hey, I know. Lets build that sea level canal through Nicaragua they have always talked about and get rid of the Northern Ice Cap altogether! ;)

  77. Kum Dollison,

    I am not betting the house on the AMO dropping to record levels and causing the Arctic sea ice to recover to 1979 levels.

    I’m just noting there is science done that indicates that the AMO is a significant driver of the Arctic sea ice and going by the historical record and in the current environment, this correlation seems to hold up.

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AGUFM.C51A0537M

    http://web.gfi.uib.no/conference2007/presentations/MMiles.pdf

    The AMO’s cycles are not as regular as the last 150 year chart indicates and there are projections that it will go into the downcycle soon (within a decade).

  78. Kum Dollison (16:43:08) :

    You twice made reference to a “negative PDO” while talking about Bill Illis’ chart of the AMO. You were talking about the “negative AMO,” right?

  79. Artic ice so seem to be at recent record levels… but signals coming from the oppisite side of the globe show a different reality. Wilkins Ice Shelf in Antarctic peninsula is at risk. Lots of videos and scientific data confirm this. Is there a connection?

    There is no connection. Sea ice changes are an annual to perhaps 5 year phenomena. Ice shelfs are land glaciers which extend over the water. Not only are the Antarctic Ice Sheets very old ice, at least tens of thousands of years old and perhaps as much as millions of years old. But glaciers/ice shelves and sea ice react to climate changes over completely different timescales.

    A New Zealand study showed modestly sized glaciers advance or retreat as a result of the climate over the last 100 to 200 years. For the massively larger Antarctic glaciers the timeframe is much greater – many many 1,000s of years.

    So retreating Antartic glaciers/ice sheets tell us the Holocene (the last 10,000 years) was warmer than the previous 10,000 to 100,000 years.

    Hardly news.

    Now if we were seeing a trend of accelerating Antarctic glacier retreat that would say something about more recent climate (although still over 100s of years) .

    However, we simply don’t have enough data to show any kind of trend in Antartic ice sheet advance or retreat.

  80. Now that we have a topic that sounds just like my last 10 posts, let me play devil’s advocate. While this year’s arctic sea ice will continue to be impressively large for a few more months, late summer will see a LOT of melting.

    Look carefully at last year’s plot in the AMSR-E data. It looked like a huge recovery — right through July. But watching it in August felt like being a Cubs fan. We ended up with some recovery from ’07 but not much. Expect some more recovery this year but don’t make a big deal about this being a record high year or you’re gonna get a plate of crow served to you. The 2007 minimum left us with some seriously thin ice and the summer melt will be significant.

  81. As the planet cools, the Sun is out to lunch, the EPA outlaws CO2.
    Who needs plants when you can have better living through petrochemicals.
    Earl Butz, let them eat cardboard. Oh, sorry, no more trees. Eat dirt.
    Stop by your local Dirt in the Box and pick up a mudburger, rock fries, and sand shake.

  82. The stark fist of reality will soon enough take the man-bear-pig down the memory hole where only pinks will bow down.

  83. There is no literal difference in so called “green-house” gases and atmospheric gases. The anti-capitalists of the UN, through the auspices of the IPCC, have corrupted the language of climatology such that the unaware public is conditioned to view the atmosphere, and especially the trace gases, as equivalent to a green-house enclosure.. We continue to foster this fallacy by the continued usage of the term “green-house gases.” The conflict is not scientific but rather one of semantics and political propaganda at which the alarmists are more adept.

  84. OT but huge change in Australian mainstream newspapers as of today. The Australian has published 4 articles debunking AGW and also the Courier mail (100% pro AGW) from Brisbane has published in full the Freeman Dyson Interviews. An eminent Australian geologist Ian Plimer is launching a new book debunking AGW. So things on this side are looking up…LOLl

  85. Thanks a lot, Robinson. I do my best not to profane, but when I clicked on that link and saw the headline . . .

  86. The 2007 minimum left us with some seriously thin ice and the summer melt will be significant.

    I ask you, so what? I don’t understand the significance of arctic sea ice extent. Why are we all playing along with the meme that it’s important, or in any way indicative of the “health” of the Earth? 80% of the Earth’s history has been sans any ice-cap at all. So what’s the problem?

  87. Agree w/Robinson. If the sea level is not rising faster than its long-term average [and since floating sea ice can not affect the sea level], the amount of sea ice is of no consequence. Only melting of ice on land can affect the sea level, and that is not happening. Furthermore, the planet’s sea ice has now broken above its long term average.

    Arm-waving over sea ice is just baseless alarmism.

  88. The downturn of ice records already effects Oklahoma winter wheat harvest:

    Cold snap may have broken wheat crop
    The freezes of April 6 and 7 may have cut this year’s production.

    Last week’s freezes have devastated Oklahoma’s winter wheat and could end up killing 40 percent to 60 percent of the crop.

    The freezes of April 6 and 7 dropped temperatures into the low teens in some parts of the state, damaging the maturing plants, especially in southeastern Oklahoma.

    http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=47&articleid=20090417_47_E1_Lastwe475132&rss_lnk=5

  89. Basil,

    No, my intention was to affirm my belief that the “PDO” (a major driver, perhapts THE major driver of Global Temperatures) has, indeed, gone negative, but that I had my doubts about the “AMO” (a major driver of “Arctic” Sea Ice) having done so.

  90. I thought you may enjoy this post @ Andrew Bolt’s blog by Graeme1.

    “”Oh Dear! The US EPA has declared CO2 is a harmful gas. Plants ingest CO2 and expel oxygen (photosynthesis) therefore we must urgently protect them.

    Outlaw vegetarism immediately, they are the murderers who deliberately target to kill the organic saviours of us all. Cows expel massive amounts of gasses that threaten the planet, and they eat plants! Therefore meateaters by eating cows are actively trying to save the planet. What a turn around””

  91. One way to separate climate (ie atmospheric) effects from sea currents in Arctic sea ice is to look at snow cover.

    Unfortunately I couldn’t find winter average snow cover for the NH.

    Looking at January snow cover for N America and Eurasia there is a clear up trend in snow cover since 2000. With 2007 (Eurasia) being the anomaly (well below average snow cover). In N. America 2006 was the year with anomalously low snow cover.

    2008 was the snowiest January on record for Eurasia. 2009 is about average for N America and Eurasia.

    So using snow cover as a proxy for sea ice formation, summer 2009 will be around summer 2008. With a perhaps a small increase due to residual effects from the last couple of years.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2009/jan/global.html

  92. It will be political suicide for democrats to pass any cap and trade. Republicans can stick the Obama administration with all the misery that will follow. As all this plays out over the next few months, people will start to take notice of the reality of what they are talking about…regulating their lives. Just maybe politicians will realize they will be looking for a new job in 2010 if they touch this evil piece of regulation. They have lost their minds and/or either so absolutely corrupt, they have lost their souls.

  93. I accidentally ingested some DHMO once thinking it was Vodka, almost killed me. It’s role in global warming is underestimated if not totally overlooked as well.

  94. Bill, thanks for the links. I admit, I’d kind of like to see the AMO stay negative for a couple of years (although, long-term, I gotta admit I like warm better than cold.)

    I just feel much more comfortable pointing to 1998, and saying, “That’s 11 Years, Ago!

    And, then, talking about the Science.

  95. Ed Scott (17:55:39) :

    There is no literal difference in so called “green-house” gases and atmospheric gases. The anti-capitalists of the UN, through the auspices of the IPCC, have corrupted the language of climatology such that the unaware public is conditioned to view the atmosphere, and especially the trace gases, as equivalent to a green-house enclosure.. We continue to foster this fallacy by the continued usage of the term “green-house gases.” The conflict is not scientific but rather one of semantics and political propaganda at which the alarmists are more adept.

    I absolutely agree with you. I would prefer to use the scientific term “atmospheric gases” than the misguiding term “greenhouse gases”.

  96. Robinson (17:57:37) :

    I don’t understand the significance of arctic sea ice extent. Why are we all playing along with the meme that it’s important, or in any way indicative of the “health” of the Earth?

    I play along because this is one data set they can’t “adjust.” Also, the Gorebots unambiguously predicted further melting. They even listed Polar Bears as threatened despite clear evidence that their population is huge and rising.

    I look forward to the day when the whole AGW hoax comes down like a house of cards. Looking over all the ways they can stonewall the truth, the Arctic sea ice looks like their biggest vulnerability. As any regular reader of WUWT knows, they have a zillion ways to mess up the surface temp record. While the satellite data could call them to account, they seem pretty adept at dancing away from that problem. So the mainstream news story stays the same — the warming is getting worse and we must act now. (And the scientific consensus is increasing!!)

    They are the ones who doubled down on Arctic sea ice and I, for one, am ready to take the bet.

    By the way, the movie (which takes forever to download) is definitely “demonstrational.” I can’t imagine they’d drill in the dark — and there’s almost none of that now where they are anyway. Are they claiming that the video is anything more than “how it’s done?”

    Also, there’s something visible on the back of the tape but I’m unsure of what it is. It looks like the number 70 to me but it’s at about the 6’3″ mark and I can’t think of any explanation that makes sense.

  97. Oops! My movie comment is for the Catlin thread. It took so long to download I had “moved on.”

  98. I play along because this is one data set they can’t “adjust.”

    A fair point, well made.

  99. Well, how is EPA going to ban water vapor? I mean, it is the most potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. If greenhouse gasses are a health threat, that means we are facing the biggest threat of all from dihydrogen monoxide.

  100. BarryW, thanks.

    Here is the same data in anomaly form with rankings.

    http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/table_rankings.php?ui_set=1

    One thing that jumps out me is the huge reduction in summer snow cover in recent years. This parallels the reductions in summer sea ice. Both have had much smaller reductions in winter extent (Jan 2008 was the snowiest on record). Which says to me soot and particulate pollution is the cause. Soot will accelerate melting in warmer weather, but has little effect in cold weather.

  101. How ironic that this step in regulating greenhouse gases comes out the day that Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency Arctic sea ice data is now above all previous years in its short 7 year record. The 13.65 km^2 of ice is well ahead of the lowest year in 2004 with 12.90 km^2.

    The ice is well below the 1979-2000 average maintained http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ but it is a good recovery from the gloom & doommonths of 2007. Perhaps we should be celebrating the Arctic Ice recovery, the above average levels around Antarctica, and of course, the recent foot or two of snow in Denver.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/17/new-milepost-for-arctic-sea-ice-extent/

  102. “Robert Bateman (17:49:18) :Eat dirt. Stop by your local Dirt in the Box and pick up a mudburger, rock fries, and sand shake.”

    Do they still carry that ‘muket-y-muck’/volcanic ash combo with a tall glass of Glacial Milk?

  103. “Ron de Haan (18:09:45) : Cold snap may have broken wheat crop
    The freezes of April 6 and 7 may have cut this year’s production.”

    Yes, this is a problem. What will poorer countries like the Philippines do if food prices start to go up, especially if this cooling does indeed pan out to be a mini ice age?

  104. Why are we so worried about ice? It hardly affects life positively. There must be so much ice in the universe at large it is ridiculous. The presence of permanent ice on the earth’s surface is a geological anomaly.

  105. “Kum Dollison (18:49:55) : I just feel much more comfortable pointing to 1998, and saying, “That’s 11 Years, Ago!” ”

    Yes, but…. what would James Hansen say?

    By the way, just in case James Hansen is right and the earth starts to burn up keep this advice from Phil Hartman in mind :

  106. peter_ga (23:30:48) :

    What???

    Were you the one that coached Miss South Carolina?

    See video :

  107. .
    >>Hansen and Al Gore are praying for a total collapse in Arctic Sea
    >>Ice in less than 4 years from now as a form of vindication!

    This is standard in fundamentalist religious belief. Jeremiah (c. 6th cent BC) did much the same when he predicted that god would destroy his people (the Israelites) in order to prove that they were not worshipping him/her in quite the right fashion. See book of Jeremiah.

    Strange logic, and if correct, an even stranger god.

    .

  108. .
    >>Yes, they ARE out there. I teach Science and I get students
    >>who are convinced that the Moon landings were faked

    Don’t knock this attitude too much, because in small doses it is healthy. Its foundation lies in the fact that governments lie and we all know they are lying, and so there is a healthy skeptisim about all government pronouncements.

    Without the pool of conspiracy theorists, by now we would all be forced to bag every exhalation and take it to the local CO2 recycling depot.

    .

  109. Anthony

    The Catlin Expedition seems a modern day analog of the ancient practice of Hindu observants prostrating themselves on the ground, to then rise and repeat the movement to attain “Nirvana”. It also reminds me of the self-infliction by the Jansenites some centuries ago.

    Seems we are not that far removed from barbarism we believe ourselves to be.

    Keep up the excellent fact-based posts.

    Best regards

    Louis Hissink

  110. Meanwhile, in the “real” world …

    UK Daily Telegraph swallows it hook, line and sinker.

    As predicted in previous threads, the Hadow debacle results in yet more unquestioning support from MSM, and the DT is probably the most sceptical of all UK ‘papers. I’ve a written the usual, stiff letter to the Editor, which will, as usual, not get published.

    Hopefully the inestimable Mr Booker will respond in tomorrow’s Sunday Telegraph.

  111. I’m not sure who put together the temperature graph for Wood for Trees, but I would like to point out that the trend from 2003 to mid 2007 is rising ( higher highs and higher lows). This forms an uptrending channel until mid 2007 where it is broken. If you are saying that temperatures are in a downtrend since 2003 you shouldn’t use this graph to try to support that contention.

  112. peter_ga (23:30:48) :

    Why are we so worried about ice? It hardly affects life positively. There must be so much ice in the universe at large it is ridiculous. The presence of permanent ice on the earth’s surface is a geological anomaly.
    Well, to put it simply, we skeptic/climate Realists are not worried so much as interested, but the Alarmists are, well ALARMED. The useful idiots, (the ones who will sign a petition against DHMO) believing everything the MSM screams about coming disasterous floods, droughts, fires, and every calamity known to man truly are worried, and full of guilt, due to the fact that they were born and require the use of resources, and will necessarily emit DANGEROUS CO2 Pollution. But, thankfully, there is a way to salvation, and they can atone for their “sins against Mother Gaia”.
    The AGW “scientists” and ideologues seem to have hitched their AGW wagon to what happens (or, more importantly, what the say WILL happen) with the icecaps, particularly the Arctic icecap, which is an interesting strategy. I suppose part of it is that melting ice is something that can be more easily seen, and understood by the lay person. There are plenty of stock photos of ice doing what it has always done, which is freezing, flowing, calving and thawing which can be used to capitalize on the ignorance of the general public of these things. Throw in a wan-looking polar bear or two “stranded” on an iceberg, and voila, you have instant, ready-for-prime-time Alarmism any Chicken Little could be proud of.
    Of course, the assumptions are that the ice melting is 1) caused by man and 2) the melting Arctic icecap will create a positive feedback loop, leading to the melting of the land-based ice of Greenland, resulting in catastrophic sea level rises of perhaps 80 feet.
    The Alarmists are wrong about what is happening with the Arctic ice, since it is in fact rebounding from its low 2007 anomaly. But, they dodge, move the goalposts, and cherry pick to their hearts’ delight to try desperately to keep the Alarmism alive, as is their wont.
    We skeptic/climate Realists do need to remember to hold the Alarmists’ feet to the fire on their false and fraudulent assumptions on why ice melts, or doesn’t, and not get too bogged down in their little games about what the ice is actually doing, as interesting as that is.

  113. Just Want Truth… (23:28:15) :

    “Poorer countries” will export to the USA the food they will need, of course provided they pay with real money, not with newly printed “trillions”

  114. D. King: :) Maybe I should have said: unsuspected consequences of Arctic melting. The current party line is “the globe will burn up”. The geologic report I cited says instead that eradicating (melting and evaporating) the Arctic ice ushers in the next ice age and provides the water to feed continental glaciers – exactly the opposite of the present “consensus” idea.

  115. Frederick Michael (17:45:36) :

    “Now that we have a topic that sounds just like my last 10 posts, let me play devil’s advocate. While this year’s arctic sea ice will continue to be impressively large for a few more months, late summer will see a LOT of melting.

    Look carefully at last year’s plot in the AMSR-E data. It looked like a huge recovery — right through July. But watching it in August felt like being a Cubs fan. We ended up with some recovery from ‘07 but not much. Expect some more recovery this year but don’t make a big deal about this being a record high year or you’re gonna get a plate of crow served to you. The 2007 minimum left us with some seriously thin ice and the summer melt will be significant.”

    I don’t disagree with a lot of what you say, but what crystal ball is telling you a LOT of late summer melt? The previous 2 seasons had unusual wind and Pacific warm water incursion leading to larger than normal July-Sept. ice loss. I’d be interested if anyone has any idea or info on similar conditions that might apply this season. The Bering Sea looks cold now with higher than normal ice cover. I have no idea if AMO or PDO will have any influence over the wind conditions. Anybody?

  116. DHMO is so bad it can eat through concrete just by dripping on it over an extended period of time! And if it gets mixed in with a levee, it can cause the levee to fail, thus flooding and even killing the folks who live behind the broken levee. All because of unregulated use of DHMO.

  117. The biggest issue will be centered around Arctic summer land temperatures and SST, along with wind patterns. If a colder oceanic current, land temps, and wind keeps ice within the circle and unmelted (it matters little how much is regrown in the winter), the ice cap will grow. Plain and simple. Year in and year out. Let’s hope that other weather pattern variations come into play to stop that growth from becoming a more significant ice advance. Anyone have a temp graph of summer only over the last 20 years? The noisy anomalous tracing would work just fine along with a moving average.

  118. Arn Riewe (09:55:04) :

    I don’t disagree with a lot of what you say, but what crystal ball is telling you a LOT of late summer melt? The previous 2 seasons had unusual wind and Pacific warm water incursion leading to larger than normal July-Sept. ice loss.

    Experience. Disappointment has given me an attitude.

    The ice is mostly 1 or 2 years old and thus thin. What happened last summer was that a huge area all melted simultaneously. “Sea ice extent” is the area where the ocean is 15% or more ice. I watched huge regions falling below 100% and each day more pixels would drop below 15%. (Yes, “pixels;” that’s how they measure it.) It was rather predictable short term. Those 24hour days melt a lot of ice, and the first year ice is hard pressed to survive (though some does).

    But my real reason for the issuing the strong caution is just a matter of tactics. It’s always wiser to use measured language. Avoid going out on a limb (which is exactly why this issue matters — the Gorebots have staked a clear claim here and it’ll be tactical error that sinks their ship.)

    I fully expect arctic sea ice to recover significantly over the next few years. But don’t expect too much progress in any one year. It could happen but don’t count on it.

    And definitely don’t put yourself in a position to get zinged if we have a single bad month. Always caveat any “bragging” with the boilerplate, “we expect further melting and this summer’s minimum will not show this much recovery.”

    The sea ice plots will be shocking as hell to anyone who refuses to step out from behind the iron curtain (AKA the MSM). The AMSR-E plot will soon show 2009 as the highest ever (but in 2008 early May was the highest ever.) There’s a good chance that 2009 in the NSIDC plot will even touch the 1979-2000 average. That’ll be a great time to send out some “wake-up” emails. But those emails will wear better over time if their predictions are VERY conservative.

  119. Will the Gore administration in 2018 declare that all non-essential carbon life forms report to the vaporization rooms ? Seriously, if co2 is deemed as a pollutant and we all exhale co2, who’s to say they won’t try to push for extreme actions such as this, in the name of saving the planet ?

  120. ******
    Jim F (09:01:47) :

    D. King: :) Maybe I should have said: unsuspected consequences of Arctic melting. The current party line is “the globe will burn up”. The geologic report I cited says instead that eradicating (melting and evaporating) the Arctic ice ushers in the next ice age and provides the water to feed continental glaciers – exactly the opposite of the present “consensus” idea.
    *******

    That’s possible. Right now, I think the high Arctic tundra is already cold enough to produce glaciers, but has too little snow for it to accumulate. If the Arctic ocean stayed relatively open in the winter, much more prec (snow) would be available. IIRC, Barrow, AK had record early-season snow this past autumn, w/unusually wide-open water to its north.

    There is some computer modeling that suggests the Arctic ocean was actually mostly open during the glacial periods. Goggle “Gildor-Tziperman” for these simulations.

  121. Steve Goddard

    I am a big fan of WUWT and enjoy your postings. This is a great article about sea ice and I am glad there are people like you presenting the other side to these arguments. Please do not take the following argument as an attack on you or your work. However, I do disagree with your assertion that based on this RSS data shown in your article, temperatures have been trending lower since 2003. I pulled up the RSS data on wood for trees all the way back to the late 1970s. The graph shows that temperatures have basicly moved sideways from the late 1970s through the early 1990s. Starting from the low in the early 1990s, there is a clear uptrend formed by connecting the lows of the data series. If you draw a parellel line connecting the highs together you get a nice uptrending channel, except for the spike high put in during 1998. We know this is an aberation because of El Nino and because the measurements came back into the uptrending channel and remained there until 2007. In mid 2007, the trend line was broken on the downside and it is currently still below this trend line.
    In my opinion, your contention that temperatures have been in a downtrend since 2003 is not supported by this data. You can not use a simple linear trend line to determine when the trend change occurred because it is highly dependent upon what year you start and end the linear trend and the magnitude of the current drop (the steeper the drop the farther back you can go and show a downward linear trend line).
    For example, your graph shows the linear trend falling from 2003 to 2009. But you could even go back to 2001 and still show a downward linear trend to 2009. If you do a linear trend from 2003 to 2006 it is flat and from 2006 to 2009 a steep downward trend. If you do a 10 year linear trend 1999-2009 it is an upward trend. The point is you can play around with linear trends all you want, but they are not a good indicator of when the change in trend occurred.
    When temperatures or other mesurements are trending higher you expect to see higher highs and higher lows as the trend progresses, with a degree of variability within this rising trend channel. This is exactly what this data shows with the trend line being violated in mid 2007, representing a change in trend. In this case it appears the temperatures are trending sideways or lower after mid 2007, but not prior to this. Other data sets may show a different result. I am only commenting on this RSS data set. Thank you for pointing out the woods for trees site. It is interesting to play around with the numbers and see the effects. mike borcherding

  122. Mike B (18:48:06) :

    The question really is “is the downward trend noise (weather) or will the trend continue?” Try looking at a plot of smoothed Hadcrut (try 120 months for example) and you’ll see a peak around 1940 and one about 1880 (about 60 yrs or so). We’re about 60 yrs after the last peak so I’m getting confident that we’re in a downturn for maybe the next 30 yrs. There is also a underlying positive trend so the trough may be higher than the last minima but I think it’s going to look like the trend has gone negative for awhile. You can detrend using about a 0.8 value to see the peaks easier.

    if this works heres a plot

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/mean:120/detrend:0.8

  123. today21/04/2009, Dr Harrison of UK Appleton Rutherford lab stated that in the case of low solar activity there willbe minimal effect on AGW

Comments are closed.