Sea Ice Open Thread

Do I see the effects of perfectly natural cycles here?

All I have to say is: the extent is already lower than the linear projection and lower than what the most pessimistic long-term models predicted.
REPLY: Then we’ll hear nothing more from you on the subject, since that’s “all you have to say”. – A

It would be interesting to see how it lines up against the 1979 – 2008 average.

Odd. I don’t see anything “unprecedented” or “worse than we thought” about any of these graphs. My only comfort is to be sure that this is exactly what the models predicted, and that any and all claims to the contrary are bizarre, specious, and most certainly not robust.

As I think I have commented before do wake me up when something interesting happens in the Arctic, like finding the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow by the North pole.
Otherwise the arctic ice is recovering, just as it always does. Nothing to see here people. Keep moving along please, unless you are Secretary General of the UN of course.
Kindest Regards.

Hey Flanagan, how about these scary scenarios?
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-no-ice-at-the-north-pole-855406.html
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/12/arctic_icefree.php
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/arctic-sea-ice-gone-by-2015-a-challenge-to-david-barber/
And of course, you can read about all the predictions that were made at Realcliimate:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/arctic-sea-ice-watch/
Pretty scary stuff, huh? Why don’t we ever hear about those predictions that never come close?

Not only will it not be a record-setter – –
But extent is likely to be above almost all projections.
http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2009_outlook/report_july.php
This underscores a fundamental issue with AGW science –
To what degree do researchers allow their expectations to influence their science?
One of the chief complaints I have had all year is all the talk about thin first-year ice.
2007 does appear to have been a record low year –
at least for the past 30 years of records – probably more.
But thin, first-year ice is a logical necessity for any recovery.
i.e. if a scenario involves a recovery of ice extent,
then by definition, there must be significant amounts of first-year ice.
Such appears to be the case during the summer of 2009.
The first-year ice did not “behave” as almost all scientists predicted.
Why? I suggest that these scientists failed to consider the possibility
that sea ice extent might recover – even if they did not think it possible.
Any good scientist should have explored the possibility.
They did not.

There is a probability that the end result would have been more as predicted, as to worse melt than 2007, had the solar cycle restarted on schedule (last year) and had been more normal in intensity.

Given the way the re-freeze last winter in the Arctic was so dramatic, it is in my view, entirely within reason to expect a similar refreeze this year, given all the below average summer temperatures in the northern states, and various early freeze stories etc.
That is assuming that this winter will be similar to last winter. One of the other consequences of lots of open water following a melt off, is that there is lots of surface area of the ocean unprotected by an ice layer to lose heat when the freeze starts it is much faster than it would be in a largely ice covered area.
Since our “historical data” on ice extent is an eye blink in earth climate history we really have no clue how recent years stack up with the long term average. The general assumption of the AGW proponents is that the higher ice extent in the recent past was the normal and the drop in ice cover was a drop below that normal.
What if that earlier ice cover extent was above normal and the recent drops in ice extent were a return to the long term average.
Historical records of periodic openings or near openings of the northwest passage would incline me to believe, the recent melt off over the last few years is a completely normal part of the natural cycle.
If you only started recording tide measurements last week at some location and had no understanding of the long term cycle of tide levels due to the moons position you would have no way of knowing if your recent measurements recorded perfectly normal tide levels or perhaps you started measurements during what was historically high or low tide conditions.
Ice extent measurements are so new in a historical sense we are very much like the fellow trying to guess next weeks tide from a week old record of daily tide measurements.
Larry

I’ll go with a minimum on Sept 14. But because I think the bend at the bottom of the curve is already visible, we have a lot more information than a few days ago. The extent isn’t going to set a record unless there’s both an earthquake and windstorm.
And should this headline actually be “Sea ice open lead”? 🙂

bryan (14:37:48) :

There is a probability that the end result would have been more as predicted, as to worse melt than 2007, had the solar cycle restarted on schedule (last year) and had been more normal in intensity.

Hard to argue with that.