Earth gives us an Earth Day present: Arctic sea ice is highest for this date in 8 years

You gotta love it when the Earth gives back the love, especially today.

http://blog.usa.gov/roller/govgab/resource/images/earth%20day.jpg

Those who have been following NSIDC and JAXA sea ice plots have noted that this has been an extraordinary year so far, with Arctic sea ice hitting the “normal” line on some datasets. Today the Earth gave back more for us.

As of today, JAXA shows that we have more ice than any time on this date for the past 8 years of Aqua satellite measurement for this AMSRE dataset. Yes, it isn’t much, but if this were September, and the sea ice minimum was down by this much compared to all other years, you can bet your sweet bippy we’d see it screamed in news headlines worldwide.

Of course some will argue that it “doesn’t matter” in the context of trend, or that it’s just a “weather” blip. Let us remind our friends of such blips the next time a heat wave or a storm is cited as proof of global warming.

What can be said about the short term trend in Arctic sea ice is that for the past two years, it has recovered from the historic low of 2007. It recovered in 2008, and more in 2009. If today’s Earth Day gift is any indication, it appears that it is on track now for a third year of recovery in 2010 as we’ve been saying at WUWT since fall of 2009.

I’d show NSIDC’s current Arctic Sea Ice graph also, but their website was down earlier today, and the current sea ice graph is not updated. But Steve Goddard has made some comparison overlays that are interesting.

He writes via email:

NSIDC’s web site is down today, but I overlaid DMI on top of the NSIDC graph and it should have hit the mean line today. Same story for JAXA.  Images are below.

DMI uses 30% concentration, so their scale is lower than NSIDC and JAXA at 15%.  I shifted the DMI data upwards and stretched vertically to visually match the NISDC data.

NSIDC versus DMI Arctic sea ice extent

The second image is JAXA, DMI and NSIDC together.  JAXA also needed to be shifted vertically as they apparently use a different algorithm for calculating extent than NSIDC.   All three track each other fairly closely during the spring,  DMI diverges from the others during the fall freeze up  – probably because of the higher concentration requirements.

NSIDC versus JAXA and DMI Arctic sea ice extent

Blue is NSIDC.  Green is JAXA.  Black is DMI.  The thick black line is the NSIDC mean. The dashed line is the 2007 historic low.

ADDED: Here is a wider view that shows that the three time series match closely over the interval of the NSIDC graph

NSIDC vs JAXA 4_22_2010 wideview

======================

Happy Earth Day everybody!

About these ads

235 thoughts on “Earth gives us an Earth Day present: Arctic sea ice is highest for this date in 8 years

  1. This is a non-issue and no victory but I understand why you have posted it.

    You are giving the finger pointers more things to point at.

    I wish good science was good enough.

  2. Not only a good present for Earth Day but a nice way to celebrate Lenin’s birthday.

    I’m sure the polar bears are partying down!

  3. Earth Day – Lenin’s Birthday – which tells us something of what this is all about.

    I am not sure Trotsky would have “picked” the Ice Story as a birthday present for him though.

  4. Yay! Earth Day was a stunning success, the Arctic is recovering, the planet has been saved!

    Okay, job’s done, everyone can go home. You too, Greenpeace, move along now.

  5. The sun back to quiet times and the Nina coming back. Bad forecast for next november’s carnal pleasures climate jamboree.

  6. Well I just posted the same observation down on another thread; what a great way to celebrate Comrade Lenin’s birthday.

    But considering the September minimum of 2007; by all accounts it was a freak event where a storm blew all that ice out of the Arctic ocean to where it could readily melt leaving an anomalous great void in the Arctic Ocean. If the absorbed solar insolation in all that open water resulted in a bit of a warming surface, that could have slowed the regrowth; but once it started, my recollection was that the regrowth rate was very rapid in 2008.

    So is it reasonable to argue that 2008/2009, were just a retrace to a more normal condition that the freak 2007 event upset, and possibly, depending what happens this september; we might start to see what the longer term trend really is; and if I follow, what a lot of folks post here; that might include some coninuation of what has been recent thinning, and lessenign of multi-year ice.

  7. Earth Day!, green policies, fight against natural polution, at the cost of changing it to lost of freedom, end of democracy and welcoming a brave new world government. Bravo!, what a big deal: Political pollution in exchange of natural pollution.

  8. Cloud10

    “I am not sure Trotsky would have “picked” the Ice Story as a birthday present for him though.”

    Oh, very droll!

  9. “Of course some will argue that it “doesn’t matter”

    So a 75 day 1,500,000 square kilometer average 9 year record low in 2007 means something significant in the history of the planet but a 21 day 2,000,000 square kilometer 9 year record high in 2010 is not-significant.

    A three year down tend for 2004 to 2007 (net loss about 1,200,000 square kilometers) means something significant in the history of the planet but a 2 year upward trend for 2007 – 2009 (net gain of 1,200,000 square kilometers, (same as the loss but in less time)) is not-significant.

    Cherry picking is where people take a small amount of data from 2007 and use a 10 year old 30 year average that fits their argument, use it like it means something significant.

  10. Climate scientist sues newspaper for ‘poisoning’ global warming debate

    Climate modeller Andrew Weaver launches libel action in Canada for publishing ‘grossly irresponsible falsehoods’

    One of the world’s leading climate scientists has launched a libel lawsuit against a Canadian newspaper for publishing articles that he says “poison” the debate on global warming.

    In a case with potentially huge consequences for online publishers, lawyers acting for Andrew Weaver, a climate modeller at the University of Victoria, Canada, have demanded the National Post removes the articles not only from its own websites, but also from the numerous blogs and sites where they were reposted.

  11. “that this has been an extraordinary year so far, with Arctic sea ice hitting the ‘normal’ line”

    Seems like an oxymoron to me…extraordinary by being normal? I guess Katrina et al were extraordinary/normal storms, so this fits in with typical climate commentary. Of course, avid warmists probably do consider it extraordinary given that the Arctic is supposed to be ice-free here in 3+ years.

    One thing that might be extraordinary in regards to this is the lateness of the Arctic ice peak.

    -Scott

  12. Climate scientist sues newspaper for ‘poisoning’ global warming debate

    Climate modeller Andrew Weaver launches libel action in Canada for publishing ‘grossly irresponsible falsehoods’

    One of the world’s leading climate scientists has launched a libel lawsuit against a Canadian newspaper for publishing articles that he says “poison” the debate on global warming.

    In a case with potentially huge consequences for online publishers, lawyers acting for Andrew Weaver, a climate modeller at the University of Victoria, Canada, have demanded the National Post removes the articles not only from its own websites, but also from the numerous blogs and sites where they were reposted.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/22/climate-change-libel-action-canada-national-post

  13. I won’t believe it until you computer model it. And make sure your model uses a flat earth, too.

  14. Thanks, Anthony! Statistically speaking, when the line is well within the one standard deviation area of the graph, it is, for all essential purposes, touching or exceeding the mean ice extent.

    Still, it is nice to watch the squiggly lines go up and up! Happy Lenin’s Birthday, errrr, Earth Day to y’all!!

  15. But, but, doesn’t this mean that all that water locked up at the poles is depriving some desert tribe in N. Africa of badly needed water? Must you rub it in? Have you no heart? ;)

  16. I haven’t seen anything yet to move me off of 6.0-6.2M km2 for minimum.

    My next major checkpoint is July 1-July 15. I think that’s where the increase in multi-year ice over last year will begin to create significant positive separation from 2009.

  17. For Earth Day, the normally rational Weather Channel is now showing an alarmist Global Warming program, describing giant dust storms ruining Las Vegas, water shortages world wide, soaring temperatures everywhere, with a spooky voice over. There was no bulletin indicating that this was a science fiction program.

    Sent a brief e-mail to their website, complaining of the program content.

  18. As it turns out I have a couple of “trees” in my back yard; which are just not putting out enough Oxygen to earn their keep, and I also have a very nice and noisy Chain saw. So when I get home tonight, I am going to slaughter those two trees in the interest of some dendrochronology. And then I am going to whack them up pretty good, so nobody is going to accuse me of Nyquist Violations on this exercise.

    I can’t think of a better way to celebrate. Well I am wearing my Green Frog Hair Hat today; it’s the frog that’s green, not the hat. Well actually the frog is green and yellow.

    Speaking of yellow, my new Physical Chemistry book has a problem question asking how many yellow photons a 100 Watt lamp emits in 1 second at 100% efficiency. Well they said yellow; but the wavelength they give is 560 nm ;which isn’t yellow in any color chart I’ve ever seen; it’s a pretty ordinary grellow; but I would look more at 580-585 if I was looking for a yellow photon. I guess some academics never do go out into the real world. The “yellow” part of the visible spectrum, is the narrowest in terms of the range of wavelengths that the eye perceives as a particular color; no more than 5 nm wide. between grellow and amber.

  19. “One of the world’s leading climate scientists has launched a libel lawsuit…”

    “…lawyers acting for Andrew Weaver, a climate modeller at the University of Victoria, Canada, have demanded the National Post removes the articles not only from its own websites, but also from the numerous blogs and sites where they were reposted.”

    “…including prominent climate-sceptic sites Climate Audit and Watts Up With That.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/22/climate-change-libel-action-canada-national-post

  20. As long as the earth is handing out presents, guess I’ll buy it a cake….topped with a lot of “icing.”

    *ducks*

  21. How long before we are told that the increase in Arctic ice _proves_ anthropogenic global warming and it was forecast in the AGW models?

  22. I posted this on a different thread, but might be of interest here:

    From IJIS http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm:
    “The black dot seen at the North Pole is an area lacking data where AMSR-E cannot observe the Earth’s surface… Please note that this area is also counted as sea-ice cover in our estimation of sea-ice extent. We may change the policy (i.e., filling the gap with full coverage of sea ice) in the near future due to the recent drastic reduction of Arctic sea ice. We will announce this if it is implemented.”

    I just noticed this comment and am not sure if it’s a recent change or not. Suspicious if it is.

  23. Scott Covert (10:58:56) : “This is a non-issue and no victory but I understand why you have posted it.”

    I think we could guarantee that it would be a ‘huge’ issue and a ‘victory’ if the ice was anywhere near a nine-year low. Such news would be heralded by the MSM.

  24. This is terrible! How can we convince people that global warming is real when the stupid environment won’t cooperate??

  25. Mike Haseler (11:16:17) :
    There isn’t any way he can win this suit, the models simply aren’t provable and therefore the claims are hearsay and thus accurate.

    He must be out of his mind or likes throwing away money.

  26. So there has been a “regression to the mean value”. Over the long run, it is the number of extremes and the number of regressions that count.

    So this proves squat, and these data tells us nothing.

  27. Scott (11:16:03) :
    “that this has been an extraordinary year so far, with Arctic sea ice hitting the ‘normal’ line”

    Seems like an oxymoron to me…extraordinary by being normal? I guess Katrina et al were extraordinary/normal storms, so this fits in with typical climate commentary. Of course, avid warmists probably do consider it extraordinary given that the Arctic is supposed to be ice-free here in 3+ years.

    One thing that might be extraordinary in regards to this is the lateness of the Arctic ice peak.

    To be accurate about it Arctic sea ice extent is high compared with the last 9 years. The sea ice area is not nor was its maximum late. Taken together these facts indicate spreading of the sea ice more than normal. I consider that interesting, similar to what happened in summer 07.

  28. Alarmists tell us that the sea is rising because of the melting polar ice, so using their “science” shouldn’t sea levels be declining?

  29. Thats good news, I guess, at leas for the people who worry alot abot polar bears, rising sea etc. If it wasnt for the internet and blogs like this excellent blog, I would never have known, this is truly a democrcy revolution, Al Gore’s internet invention.
    Swedish media refuses to publish storys like this, pubclic service media, (swedish bbc)-SVT is on a huge drive for climate alarmism, they are building up for something, I do not know what.

    http://svt.se/2.108068/1.1955993/forkrossande_majoritet_enig_om_klimatforandringarna

    My translation “Devastating majority in agreement of Climate change.
    Over 97 of swedish scientists working in the field of climate research agree that man is proven to be responsible for the global warming.”
    This according to a poll they made that is so ridiculous that I am ashamed to describe it. It also says 90% has faith in the IPCC.

    http://svt.se/2.108068/1.1966830/marginellt_vetenskapligt_stod_for_klimatskeptiker?lid=puff_1966993&lpos=lasmer

    Then they make another “study”. “Scientific support of climate scepticism is poor”.
    Only five (5) of 8000 climate research related articles, peer reviewed 2009-2010 support scepticism of man causing the global warming. They have contacted an expert, Naomi Oreskes who helped them analyse their findings.

    The troublesome thing here is that the SVT is very prestisious and well regarded for its neutrality in (other) political agendas and reports like this, in national newscasts, really make an impact on people who do not actively seek information elsewhere.

    Sorry didnt mean to start ranting about it, bu I want you guys in other countries to look out, because the conspiracyguy in me is telling me something is staged.
    Why this massiva campaigne?

    Other than that, the weather is nice, bit cold but beatiful sunshine.

  30. “As of today, JAXA shows that we have more ice than any time on this date for the past 9 years of Aqua satellite measurement for this AMSRE dataset. Yes, it isn’t much, but if this were September, and the sea ice minimum was down by this much compared to all other years, you can bet your sweet bippy we’d see it screamed in news headlines worldwide.”
    ——
    Anthony, I’ve been comparing the daily numbers to 2003 since your post [Visualizing Changes ...] on April 12th using the downloadable data, and there has been more ice than anytime in the last 9 years since that date (2008 doesn’t beat 2003 in that time period). The largest difference in that time period was about 291k sq km. Today’s is about 280k sq km.

    REPLY:I’m not surprised, it seems clear from the graph, but I was focusing on today. -A

  31. happy earth day skeptics:

    AFP: Shafiq Alam: Challenge to IPCC’s Bangladesh climate predictions
    Scientists in Bangladesh posed a fresh challenge to the UN’s top climate change panel Thursday, saying its doomsday forecasts for the country in the body’s landmark 2007 report were overblown…
    IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri defended his organisation’s Bangladesh predictions Thursday, warning that “on the basis of one study one cannot jump to conclusions.”
    “The IPCC looks at a range of publications before we take a balanced view on what’s likely to happen,” he told AFP by telephone.
    But IPCC’s prediction did not take into account the one billion tonnes of sediment carried by Himalayan rivers into Bangladesh every year, which are crucial in countering rises in sea levels, the study funded by the Asian Development Bank said…
    “Sediments have been shaping Bangladesh’s coast for thousands of years,” said Maminul Haque Sarker, director of the Dhaka-based Center for Environment and Geographic Information Services (CEGIS), who led research for the study…

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jxWAlO7hpr2AXkrZMWswKyK39gOA

  32. ” John from CA (12:16:23) :

    Mike Haseler (11:16:17) :
    There isn’t any way he can win this suit,”

    I don’t think he can win against the newspaper but he might be able to win libel suits against some hotblooded commenters. This together with Dr.Mann’s legal fight against M4GW indicates that a new phase has begun. AGW money can finance a lot of lawsuits. Keep your tongue in check everyone.

  33. The [gd] Weather Channel at around 3-4 pm showed a program that was called “Future Earth” and showed useless propaganda about “Arctic in death spiral.” The fools failed to reconcile, that Arctic ice has highest in almost a decade, and that the world was cooling. Poor Stu Ostro is so confused, that I had to enlighten him with many of my comments! You can see my enlightening comments to poor old confused Stu here: http://www.weather.com/blog/weather/8_21489.html?from=blog_comment_mainindex#comment

    I am Getting Cold, FYI.

  34. it’s not the arctic, it’s california…but there is normaly NO ice this time of year.

  35. So it’s been warmer than usual (allegedly) in the Arctic and the sea ice coverage is up. Does this mean as well as making it snow more AGW also makes the ice grow?

  36. It was also the latest peak in ice since records began, if you remember from previous WUWT articles, Ice Cap, Climate Audit, etc.

    BTW, one POINT can be assessed by being within an S.D. and not having significance. You can look at things this way if you have minimal math/statistical training. When there are a series of points, then trend analysis must be employed. For example, year on year, the life span goes up among males and females. Each year is within an S.D. of the predecessor. However, trend analysis shows highly significant increase in life span over the years. This shows how incapable most in the cult are in using proper statistical analyses.

    I think the cult will soon proclaim, since their followers have a day or two memory retention, that the ice only turned up AFTER the Iceland volcano erupted. Of course, the measurements were up before that happened, but this report came after!

    Count on it. The volcano saved us from an inferno. WUWT? WTFIT? But that is their banter and babble.

  37. Aside from admiring polar bears, from a discrete distance, the main interest in Arctic sea ice is its relatively high albedo. Note that on April 22, only 25% of solar radiation makes it through the atmosphere to the surface at the North Pole. On June 21, when the “solar altitude” will attain its maximum of 23.5 degrees, 47% of solar radiation will reach the surface at the pole (if the atmosphere is clear). Midsummer is the only time when the sea ice has a significant reflective effect.

  38. DirkH (12:50:38)
    “Keep your tongue in check everyone.”

    I disagree.

    All that evil needs to succeed is for good people to do nothing.

    So do something. Do not go quietly into the night.

  39. R. de Haan (11:11:21) :

    thanks for the link. that site is a disgrace. there are billions of stuff and changes they can show on the face of this earth that we may or may not like. But this kind of anecdotal laundry-list is the refuge worst kind of science.

  40. Where is the post from Anu saying how all this eggshell-thin new ice will be gone by September as we hit the lowest extent in a decade?

    I don’t know, something seems missing without such “Enjoy it now, you’ll be crying later!” posts. Gives a skeptic like me a warm fuzzy feeling and puts a nice smile on my face. Anyone else get that?

  41. björn (12:45:40) :

    If you have any unwanted global warming in Sweden, please send it to Colorado.

    I’m not overly surprised that Swedish climate scientists are in agreement with their funding sources.

  42. And on this Earth Day, it is snowing in Prescott Arizona!

    Too bad CO2 isn’t pushing up the temps more, I could sure use more warmth this weekend …

  43. If one looks at the monthly anomalies for the Arctic on the NASA GISS website, we see that from Dec 09 to Mar 10 all are in the ‘red zone’. So with all that heat in the area how does the ice cover increase and thicken? Any explanations? Maybe it is all to do with wind direction and strength (or the temps extrapolations are faulty).
    See Arctic monthly temp anomalies on:-

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

  44. amazing, given CSMonitor is generally pro CAGW:

    (six pages)20 April: Christian Science Monitor: Buying carbon offsets may ease eco-guilt but not global warming
    Voluntary carbon offsets are a ‘Wild West’ market ripe for fraud, exaggeration, and poorly run projects that probably do little to ease global warming
    An investigation by The Christian Science Monitor and the New England Center for Investigative Reporting has found that individuals and businesses who are feeding a $700 million global market in offsets are often buying vague promises instead of the reductions in greenhouse gases they expect.
    They are buying into projects that are never completed, or paying for ones that would have been done anyhow, the investigation found. Their purchases are feeding middlemen and promoters seeking profits from green schemes that range from selling protection for existing trees to the promise of planting new ones that never thrive. In some cases, the offsets have consequences that their purchasers never foresaw, such as erecting windmills that force poor people off their farms…
    Mr. Skar, of Greenpeace, says the industry is rife with financial speculators in flannel shirts: “Carbon cowboys. People from the most bizarre backgrounds. People who have no prior interest in the environment.”..

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0420/Buying-carbon-offsets-may-ease-eco-guilt-but-not-global-warming/(page)/3

  45. Happy Earth Day, Komrades!

    A ten cent observation with no supporting information: What if the el Nino of 1998 was represented a decade later in the arctic when warm waters finally arrived there?

    I’m well aware of the wind factor also, but these things tend to have more than one cause.

    For Earth Day, I think I’ll take the Escalade down to the local earth day celebration and set up a tailgate BBQ!

  46. Happy earth day to its living prophet maximum: Al Baby (aka: “El Gordo”). If we follow his teachings the earth will get rid of the human pollution.

  47. Speaking of love gifts to the mother orb. . . when are we gonna get a SurfaceStations.org update, huh? Prime collection season is nearly upon us! Or are you calling the project “substantially complete” at this point?

  48. When you take a careful look at the 1979 sea-ice area around april 21 you will still find a lot larger ice area than there is now . So from a certain point of view 1979 was an excellent starting year and has not been beaten the last 30 years , so next year only may start to demonstrate new records , but then katla could be blamed and our agw enthousiasts will again stipulate that the trend has not been broken and this is only an incident hiding the general accelerated warming of the atmosphere , so much spoilt by all deniers and other revisionistic and cosmopolitic scam . Comrades let us sing the internationale !

  49. Ian:
    It is probably caused by a lack of “M” (see WUWT about temperature reporting).

    Without “M”s, where would we be? Could Agent 007 get along without M?

  50. “geoff pohanka (11:35:55) :

    Not only is there more Arctic ice today than in past years, the ice is also thicker.
    Thicker ice melts more slowly.

    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=04&fd=18&fy=1980&sm=04&sd=18&sy=2010

    Is ‘thickness’ usually synonynous with ‘concentration’ here? These maps show a more purplish colour when the ice is more concentrated, but is the ice actually thicker? R Gates has said recently that the ice this year is a lot thinner than other years and that is a cause of concern for him. I suppose it is possible that the ice can be more concentrated but also be thinner, but I’m actually a little confused about these two terms. Is there data available which shows ice thickness as opposed to concentration?

    Anyone help out?

    R Gates?

  51. I have a big present for Mother Earth.

    Sunspot number: 0

    Spotless Days
    Current Stretch: 7 days
    2010 total: 14 days (13%)
    2009 total: 260 days (71%)
    Since 2004: 784 days
    Typical Solar Min: 485 days
    explanation | more info
    Updated 21 Apr 2010

    http://www.spaceweather.com/

    Enjoy the cooling, mother.

  52. whoops, picture did not come through…

    It’s not the Arctic, it’s California. But there is normally NO ice here this time of year…

    REPLY: just put the URL in for the picture, don’t use tags

  53. Just came across this website: http://www.fcpnorthwestpassage.com/

    Apparently TV adventureman Bear Grylls will be trying to navigate an “ice-free” Northwest Passage this August to highlight the dangers of global warming.

    Following this update on current ice conditions, it should be interesting to see how far they make it.

  54. Earth Day 1970 predicted a coming ice age. Maybe that’s why the Arctic is refreezing now.
    Strange how Earth Day coincides with Lenin’s birthday,

  55. Just me out of 72 responses?
    I think you mean 8 years not 9.
    AMSR-E only got going in autumn 2002, so that’s only 8 spring seasons, including this one.
    Can’t include 2002, cos there’s no AMSR-E spring season data.

    [Fixed, thanks. ~dbs]

  56. “pat (13:15:50) :
    [...]
    Mr. Skar, of Greenpeace, says the industry is rife with financial speculators in flannel shirts: “Carbon cowboys. People from the most bizarre backgrounds. People who have no prior interest in the environment.”.

    Greenpeace has to say this – they run certification schemes so it’s THEIR market and they need to exclude any competition.

  57. Come on folks! Quit crowing so much. Let’s put of context behind all of this.

    1. If some of you are claiming that we’ve hit “normal” as regards arctic sea ice, well just take a step back & lookk at the trend.

    2. And surely you’re comparing it with which ever data sets we have at out disposal. Therefore, don’t then discredit those same datasets when the hat doesn’t fit quite so well.

    3. For example, as I have pointed out on several occasions, hitting normal for what constitutes a brief moment in the last 9 years does not constitute being “back to normal”. Think carefully about what I have written in point 2 before you respond!!

    4, Please, please don’t go down the line yet again of pointing out that our record is so brief that we don’t really know what “normal” actually is. Agreed, yes we don’t know for sure but we do have comparisons from the last 30 years, so let’s use what we’ve got. It’s simply a cop out to dismiss all records on the basis that we’ve not had them long enough.

    5. So, in summary, in the same way that we might want to challenge any pro-AGW prodaginists about droughts etc, so we should also challenge any notion that we have hit “normal” as regards arctic sea ice. We can’t have our cake & eat it folks – if we’re claiming “normal” extent, what are we comparing it against?

    6. And finally, for all those who would so dearly like to label me as a “warmist” (Heaven forbid!!), I am not. I am a scientist pointing out the obvious & with truly no axe to grind. As far as my own stance is concerned, the science is far from settled. It is too complex for that at this stage but….that statement clearly works equally both ways.

  58. “Andrew30 (13:06:05) :

    DirkH (12:50:38)
    “Keep your tongue in check everyone.”

    I disagree.

    All that evil needs to succeed is for good people to do nothing”

    Let me put it this way: Express yourselves in a way that makes it impossible to sue you. Clearer now?

  59. Rick (12:15:29) said:

    “This is terrible! How can we convince people that global warming is real when the stupid environment won’t cooperate??”

    Simple, Rick.

    Just ignore observational data.

    Been working so far.

    :)

  60. It’s all good news for the Arctic Sea Ice:

    04,21,2010,13673125
    04,21,2009,13527656
    04,21,2008,13169219
    04,21,2007,12942813
    04,21,2006,12962656
    04,21,2005,13119375
    04,21,2004,12745938
    04,21,2003,13392188
    Jaxa data is back up.

    I’m wondering. Does anyone remember if there was an expression of relief after it was discovered the Earth wasn’t going to plunge directly into an Ice Age after the 70’s??
    Or did we simply go from one bummer to the next?

  61. nsid’s web site is down because thay have turned it off and they’re all down at the pub drowning their sorrows trying to work out what went wrong with their predictions

  62. Clearly last year’s recession and the drop in CO2 emissions made the arctic ice recover. Another proof for the direct connection between CO2 emissions and the climate. ;-)

  63. Steve Goddard writes via email: [snip]

    Selecting parts of a personal email and arguing it online is not appropriate. ~dbs, mod.

  64. DirkH (14:29:43) :

    Actually, it was lower in 2004 than in 2007, but nodoby was paying attention.

  65. Ben Kellett (13:57:55) :

    4, Please, please don’t go down the line yet again of pointing out that our record is so brief that we don’t really know what “normal” actually is. Agreed, yes we don’t know for sure but we do have comparisons from the last 30 years, so let’s use what we’ve got. It’s simply a cop out to dismiss all records on the basis that we’ve not had them long enough.

    ++++

    Alas, while we have 30 years of data, NSIDC insists on using 22 yrs worth. They know they should use 30 years for calculation of the base-line if it were only a matter of science making the decision. They’ve said so, publicly. But they don’t, because if they did it would create “confusion” (again, their word) when the baseline was suddenly lower and current conditions more often exceeded it. Musn’t muddy their alarmist message to the public, seems to be the “confusion” they are afraid of. Surely it can’t be Gavin and Pielke, Jr who would be “confused”.

  66. The reason I’m worried about the sun is because, as a geologist, I recognize the modus operandi for planet Earth (at least for the past several million years) is COLD, FROZEN, ICY, and MISERABLE (for humans at least). We just happen to be living in one of those tolerably warm breaks that come around about 10% of the time–at the end of it, no less.

    I say, let Cycle 24 begin with vigor and, with all this wonderful CO2 floating around, let me get to my gardening! (Last summer saw only 4 days 90 degrees or above where I live, which wasn’t warm enough to grow much.) However, I don’t say this with much enthusiasm.

    I’m betting with most of you–Gore is going to be severely disappointed, since this next cycle isn’t going to amount to much and however they want to dismiss and deflect it, I believe the earth’s heater actually is the sun. What a novel theory.

  67. The comments are getting kinda silly now. Really, we still have the May-June “crunch” to go through. And look at 2 to 3 months ago, didn’t make a big deal out of that.

  68. “rbateman (14:36:21) :

    DirkH (14:29:43) :

    Actually, it was lower in 2004 than in 2007, but nodoby was paying attention”

    What you’re looking at? I don’t see that in JAXA or Cryosphere today.

  69. Maybe if I’m right about 2010 minimum, they’ll finally switch to 1981-2010 for 2011. Ending with 2007 and 2008 probably is part of the sour taste in their mouth about doing it given how 2009 went, and 2010 is going so far (even by their own admission, tho carefully blamed on the AO).

  70. “Ben Kellett (13:57:55) :

    Come on folks! Quit crowing so much. Let’s put of context behind all of this”

    May I remind you that the warmaholics have forecast that the Arctic Ocean will be ice free in the summer in the near future. I have seen dates between 2013 and 2030. Ban Ki Moon visited the Arctic last summer to emphasise how real the danger was of an ice free summer in the near future. He got to about 81 degrees of latitude before the ice was so thick they could get no further in the Norwegian ice breaker.

    So what is important to me is to illustrate how unlikely it is that the Arctic Ocean will be ice free in summer in the near future. Never mind what “normal” is.

  71. Whoa. . . just got an email (after over a year of trying) from the Pembina, ND city office promising a MMTS+surroundings picture for next week.

    Anthony and Evan may understand that one anyway! :)

  72. Communists, socialist warmists playing the age old game of quietly those who oppose their views by “threat” in this case of financial harm. I hope they try to sue someone or company with some spine and dollars, discoveries would certainly be newsworthy. I hope someone takes up a collection jar if needed as i certainly would pay the price of admission to that show.

  73. frederik wisse (13:20:54) : “Comrades let us sing the internationale!”

    This is the final struggle
    Let us group together, and tomorrow
    The Internationale
    Will be the human race

    As much as I enjoy writing out the lyrics to songs, this one goes a blasted six stanzas (with stuff like: Enslaved masses, arise, arise The world is about to change its foundation), so you only get the refrain.

    Happy Earth Day to everyone! I think I will celebrate by going south and giving baby penguins to the killer whales to play with. And I’ll leave the lights on at my house while I do it.

  74. What isthe expected impact of the iceland volcano on the arctic ice? If it starts falling-out on the arctic sea ice, won’t this increase melting?

  75. rbateman (14:22:43) :

    I’m wondering. Does anyone remember if there was an expression of relief after it was discovered the Earth wasn’t going to plunge directly into an Ice Age after the 70’s??
    Or did we simply go from one bummer to the next?

    The next “bummer” was acid rain in the 1980’s. I remember well worrying about acid rain. I was young then, so I didn’t have the acumen to filter through eco-propaganda and truth. But the acid rain scare just disappeared. It was replaced by the ozone hole scare. But that disappeared too, because it was replaced by global warming. This latest scare is obviously more profitable than acid rain or ozone hole problems.

  76. Phil. (12:25:05) :
    “To be accurate about it Arctic sea ice extent is high compared with the last 9 years. The sea ice area is not nor was its maximum late. Taken together these facts indicate spreading of the sea ice more than normal. I consider that interesting, similar to what happened in summer 07.”

    You need to look at a proper data-source Phil, before putting your foot in it!

    If you go to the Arctic-ROOS site here…

    http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic

    …you will find that both area and extent are dead-on the 1979 to 2006 average!

    You must realise that the amount of Arctic sea-ice is the result of the many climate processes dependant on deterministic chaos, so each year is an independent event, with only a slight ‘memory’ from multi-year ice effecting it. Trends are meaningless when trying to forecast sea-ice area and extent.

  77. Sea ice extent is indeed looking great, considering how low it has been, still not above the longer term average, but very close. And now to rain on your Earth Day parade, but what really matters with the arctic sea ice is volume, and that’s not really done anything but go down for many many years. See:

    For this reason, and a few others, I’m still projecting that our summer low will be less than 2008 or 2009, but not quite as low as 2007. The big bump up in sea ice we saw in March and early April was primarily focused on the Bering Sea, and that was very thin ice that is melting fast, see:

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.2.html

    But Happy Earth day!

  78. DirkH (12:50:38) :
    Interesting point Dirk, in Weaver’s case the suit against the paper appears to be about the paper’s unwillingness to print retractions. In the instance of Mann, the threat appears to be focused at free speech.

    Your comment above indicates Weaver is also naming commenters on the paper’s blog in the suit which is the basis of your warning. It seems logical that he’s doing this to demonstrate the impact of the article to prove his case though its tough to conclude anything without the facts.

    I honestly wish someone would step forward and prove that at least one or more Climate Models has proven accurate over a reasonable span of time. Say projections for 2011-2012 from 5-10 years ago or even from today would help.

    Without proof that the models work, what basis is there for the 50-100 year projections with or without CO2?

  79. DirkH (14:47:47) :

    Today’s take of yesterdays data as compared to 2003-9:
    04,21,2010,13673125
    04,21,2009,13527656
    04,21,2008,13169219
    04,21,2007,12942813
    04,21,2006,12962656
    04,21,2005,13119375
    04,21,2004,12745938
    04,21,2003,13392188

    If you wait about 6 hours, todays data will be in, and it will be today until tomorrow arrives tomorrow, at which time todays data will be yesterdays data tomorrow.

    Happy Earth Day :)

  80. Wade (15:10:41) :

    rbateman (14:22:43) :

    I’m wondering. Does anyone remember if there was an expression of relief after it was discovered the Earth wasn’t going to plunge directly into an Ice Age after the 70’s??
    Or did we simply go from one bummer to the next?

    The next “bummer” was acid rain in the 1980’s. I remember well worrying about acid rain. I was young then, so I didn’t have the acumen to filter through eco-propaganda and truth. But the acid rain scare just disappeared

    ————————

    I was a biology student back when the acid rain scare took off in the 1980s. I remember very earnest grad students and profs discussing their research on this frightening phenomenon. Scientists and students at this local level were not engaged in propaganda that I recall; the problem was that they were looking for evidence of the effects of acid rain, and were not conducting double blind tests and statistical analysis of the phenomena they were encountering. When they found the damaging ‘evidence’ (two-headed fish and other mutants in acid lakes) they were convinced of the serious nature of the problem. Fortunately, critical impulses were still alive in that period, and evidence of natural acidity in many of the lakes being studied, and studies of the background mutation rates etc, put paid to the acid alarmism.

    Earth Day has only been ‘celebrated’ for 20 years in Canada. One positive outcome – school children and volunteers clean up the garbage infesting the city today and tomorrow, offering a temporary improvement.

    More on topic:

    The Catlin Expedition has built an igloo to extend their headquarters. They have also posted about witnessing their first midnight sun of the year, but the accompanying photo shows the night sun over Spitzbergen (presumably stock photo from some previous year), so as to display open water.

    http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/News.aspx?newsid=91

  81. I burned about an even ton of underbrush this morning that I cut & gathered over the preceding week. I burned a ton the week before and will be doing the same each week for about the next month. All that stored sunshine going to waste! Deadfall from amongst the big trees I eventually cut up into fireplace size chunks and get some use out of it. It’s all carbon neutral though so the green police should have no complaints either way.

  82. Ian George (13:14:38) :

    If one looks at the monthly anomalies for the Arctic on the NASA GISS website, we see that from Dec 09 to Mar 10 all are in the ‘red zone’. So with all that heat in the area how does the ice cover increase and thicken? Any explanations? Maybe it is all to do with wind direction and strength (or the temps extrapolations are faulty).
    See Arctic monthly temp anomalies on:-

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

    ________________________________________________________________________________

    Take a quick look at the last few posts attip & notes to WUWT.

    Ecotretas (13:35:24) :

    “I ve done some analysis of one of the most northern weather stations: Eureka, in Nunavut Canada….http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2010/04/eureka.html

    Seems the minus sign problem from Eureka gets smeared all over northern Canada because the stations are few and far between up there.

  83. … and if the models have yet to be perfected, what basis was there for all the claims of Global disaster and to conclude the need for a Carbon Tax related to unproven theory?

    In a court of law, isn’t something that’s not proven or experienced firsthand considered “hearsay” and typically dismissed from the record?

    The discovery phase of the suits is likely to require proof of AGW which would cause far more harm then all the skeptics have?

  84. Ben Kellett (13:57:55) :

    “Come on folks! Quit crowing so much. Let’s put of context behind all of this.”

    Ben, I agree from the perspective you’re coming from. We see it all the time. Personally, I’m comfortable with the freezing and melting.

    The semi-euphoria you’re witnessing probably isn’t really related to a high-ice mark, but rather the timing of the marking.(Lenin’s birthday.) :-). Further, it is one more marking. Given the continuous drone of the “MELTING ICECAPS” alarmist creed, we can all nod and smile at their willful ignorance. For, as you point out, regardless of the brevity, we have some data. For instance, myself and anyone else who’s bothered to pay attention, can say for the last 3 years, we’ve seen nothing but a constant growth trend in the Arctic ice. Yes, it’s brief, and the line is arbitrary, we didn’t draw the line. Some earthday-birthday-marxist-leninist-alarmist did. And, lo and behold, here we are again, after all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

    Off to shoot some pool, Happy Lenin day!!!!

    James Sexton.

  85. RockyRoad (13:37:28) :

    What on earth has happened to the SUN? It was supposed to have kicked into the 24th cycle over two years ago, but here it is still doing practically nothing! Folks, I’m getting worried.

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/10jan_solarcycle24/

    _____________________________________________________________________________

    The Layman’s Sunspot Count has a graph comparing Cycle 24 to Cycle 5 (1798) so far the first third of the two cycles are tracking if you compare the sunspots counted by “similar equipment” http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50

  86. Ben Kellett (13:57:55) : 4, Please, please don’t go down the line yet again of pointing out that our record is so brief that we don’t really know what “normal” actually is.

    Geo, “Alas, while we have 30 years of data,”

    Can I just point out that in a system where the noise component varies depending on the time period being viewed, 30 years of data can only tell you the noise for periods of less than 30 years

    This is the huge fallacy of climate forecasters. They assume that climatic noise does vary depending on the time period being analysed, but if they knew anything about the subject and even read their own IPCC report they would know that it is load of bs.

    This is frequency dependent noise and anyone looking at this subject needs to read up on this subject before making statements like “30 years is long enough” … it isn’t!

  87. R. Gates (15:24:22) :

    You do know that PIOMAS is a model, that was validated with 5 years of actual observational data from ICESat and then extrapolated backwards to make it look like they actually know what 1980-2005 looked like, right?

    Maybe they do. Maybe they don’t. One can sure they tuned their model to be sure it did validate against ICESat, but that doesn’t increase the confidence beyond what anyone should give a 5 year observational result. 1980-2005 is still a guess, not an observation, on that chart.

  88. @Blackswhitewash
    Yes. This is back to 1972. Look at how much higher the average is. 1972-1978 must have much greater seaice coverage. And that was with just 1 weak solar cycle. We’re getting 2 weak cycles now, so expect ice to even higher than any time in the 70’s by 2030.

  89. RockyRoad (14:40:12) :

    The reason I’m worried about the sun is because, as a geologist, I recognize the modus operandi for planet Earth (at least for the past several million years) is COLD, FROZEN, ICY, and MISERABLE (for humans at least)….

    I’m betting with most of you–Gore is going to be severely disappointed, since this next cycle isn’t going to amount to much and however they want to dismiss and deflect it, I believe the earth’s heater actually is the sun. What a novel theory.
    _______________________________________________________________________________

    If you have taken a few geo courses it is really hard to believe all this “sky is falling” stuff.

    I was doing some browsing over at the tips and notes and there is some brand new research on the solar wind. I hope to see it as a post here very soon. It seems to explain how the sun can have a much bigger effect despite only minor variations in TSI.

    ________________________________________________________________________________

    enneagram (08:34:32) :

    Scientists discover surprise in Earth’s upper atmosphere
    The rate at which the solar wind transfers energy to the magnetosphere can vary widely…

  90. “It recovered in 2008, and more in 2009.”
    The hardcore nerds here wouldn’t agree. Yes the 2009 minimum was higher, but the average wasn’t.
    Integrate the AMSR-E chart and divide by the days to get the average and this is the result.
    2003 10.839Msqkm
    2004 10.687Msqkm
    2005 10.374Msqkm
    2006 10.249Msqkm
    2007 09.994Msqkm
    2008 10.488Msqkm
    2009 10.460Msqkm

    2009 slightly down on 2008
    Other details, Spring season ice began year-on-year net increasing 1 year before the summer ice. i.e. 2006 was the spring min. Autumn 2007 had the highest growth rate of ice of all AMSR-E recorded ice.

  91. Mike Haseler (15:55:52) :

    But, Mike, I wasn’t arguing that 30 years was “enough”. I was arguing that 22 years *isn’t*, particularly when you have 31 available to you.

    Also that NSIDC has already acknowledged that 30 would be better than 22 from a science perspective, so I shouldn’t have to make that argument to them at all –they’ve said it themselves. Yet here we are arguing over their self-acknowledged worse-than-they-have-available-to-them 22 year standard.

  92. meemoe_uk (16:25:29) :
    The same Oh my God we’re all going to boil alive like lobsters GISS graph was paraded around so much that several people, me included, decided to see what the devil was going on:

    That was when I found out there are two Ice measurements.
    See, when you call the alarmist on one exaggeration, they just run to another view as if nobody noticed.

    So, that’s why I went to all the trouble with statistical drips and dribbles to come up with this:

    The South grew colder as the North grew warmer. Whee….. what a rush that was!!!

    And what do you want to bet, 20 years from now, all this Barbecue Summer Bummer will give way to the next big Bummer/Bad Trip???

  93. The preliminary JAXA number is out for 4/22/2010 at 13,654,531.

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv

    This shows a small decrease from yesterday:

    04,21,2010,13673125
    04,22,2010,13654531

    Most importantly, this number will be revised around 11pm eastern time and again a few hours later. The final figure tends to be greater than the initial by 15000 to 18000, so the decrease from yesterday may almost vanish.

    The NSIDC plot may yet cross the 1979-2000 mean, though that won’t actually mean much. What matters is the summer minimum, but that’s looking stronger every day.

  94. “Of course some will argue that it “doesn’t matter” in the context of trend, or that it’s just a “weather” blip. Let us remind our friends of such blips the next time a heat wave or a storm is cited as proof of global warming.”

    The El Nino blip of the first 1/4 of this year doesn’t matter.

  95. R. de Haan (11:11:21) :

    Check the pictures for Arctic Sea Ice that compares 2000 and 2010, and the text below it. Either they swapped the images, need new glasses, or need lessons in English.

  96. Scott Covert (10:58:56) :

    “This is a non-issue…”

    I don’t follow you. It is one of the primary issues in global warming. There are only 4 years left to Al Gore’s prediction that the North Pole could be ice free because of global warming.

    It is the primary issue that global warming predictions are already failing. So, it follows then that their 50 and 100 year predictions are worthless.

    Everyone must be informed that global warming predictions are worthless.

    Shouldn’t they? Don’t you want Cap N Trade stopped? Don’t you want the “Village of the Damned” look in some teenagers and childrens faces to be to be changed into a smile of relief because we are not headed to a litany of disasters?

    Please don’t say this in a non-issue.

  97. cloud10 (11:05:14) :

    “Earth Day – Lenin’s Birthday – which tells us something of what this is all about.

    I am not sure Trotsky would have “picked” the Ice Story as a birthday present for him though.”

    ———————————————————-

    Maybe Solzhenitsyn would have. :-)

  98. Mike Haseler (11:15:55) :

    Climate scientist sues newspaper for ‘poisoning’ global warming debate

    Climate modeller Andrew Weaver launches libel action

    ————————————————————

    Apparently his climate modellor livelihood is being threatened.

    Does he see himself holding a sign saying “Will model for food” in his future?

  99. rb Wright (11:33:32) :

    “For Earth Day, the normally rational Weather Channel is now showing an alarmist Global Warming program, describing giant dust storms ruining Las Vegas, water shortages world wide, soaring temperatures everywhere, with a spooky voice over.”

    ————————————————————–

    I think a couple of their employees are global warming alarmists. But from the little wise cracks about global warming I’ve heard from a couple of the others not all of them are.

  100. Geo

    I grew up in Pembina, ND and have family there still. If you have any problems getting what you are looking for, perhaps I could help.

  101. DirkH (12:50:38) :

    “” John from CA (12:16:23) :

    Mike Haseler (11:16:17) :
    There isn’t any way he can win this suit,”

    I don’t think he can win against the newspaper but he might be able to win libel suits against some hotblooded commenters. This together with Dr.Mann’s legal fight against M4GW indicates that a new phase has begun. AGW money can finance a lot of lawsuits. Keep your tongue in check everyone.”

    ——————————————————————————

    If they can’t beat a newspaper why would they go after a comment on a blog??

    Imagine the news report,” Scientists sues commenter on the internet. The same scientists lost a suit against a newspaper and a tv station but he won in a separate suit over a comment on a blog.”

    You think we would see this story in the news?

  102. Tenuc (15:21:33) :
    Phil. (12:25:05) :
    “To be accurate about it Arctic sea ice extent is high compared with the last 9 years. The sea ice area is not nor was its maximum late. Taken together these facts indicate spreading of the sea ice more than normal. I consider that interesting, similar to what happened in summer 07.”

    You need to look at a proper data-source Phil, before putting your foot in it!

    If you go to the Arctic-ROOS site here…

    http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic

    …you will find that both area and extent are dead-on the 1979 to 2006 average!

    I did use reliable sources, unfortunately Arctic-ROOS hasn’t been so since the satellite they use hit trouble last year. My preference is JAXA and CT.

  103. R Gates, your Arctic microclimate graphs (IE Bering Strait) demonstrate not melting so much as wind pushing, piling, and pulling ice here and there. You can easily correlate and predict what the extent and area graphs will say the next day by closely following wind data. Plus volume, in my opinion, is determined by pile-up, not by age (research Great Lakes ice volume for example).

    I have been following the Arctic wind patterns over the past several years. Last year and this, wind patterns predicted pile ups. Which leads to very thick, interconnected twisted piles of ice that don’t break apart and melt very quickly. I predict, in opposite to your prediction, that we will continue to see summer ice recovery from its 07 low. Not because anything is warmer or colder, but because the ice is kinda in a constipated impacted condition. And there is no enema in sight. Unless the AO turns strongly positive.

  104. Anu (14:31:37) :

    Steve Goddard writes via email: [snip]

    Selecting parts of a personal email and arguing it online is not appropriate. ~dbs, mod.

    Personal email ?
    It was all from this very article, above.
    See the section where the article says “He [Steve Goddard] writes via email:”

    Anyway, it was all tongue-in-cheek for Earth Day.
    Cheers.

  105. Ice VOLUME is the best ,,, but the ICESAT that took it directly died. Still:

    The Polar Science Center has a model using all the lesser indicators & total Arctic Sea Ice VOLUME bottomed out at ~5800 cubic miles last year —
    … Now the 2007 El Nino (rated 1.1 whilst this year’s peaked at 1.8) dropped that September near 4000 lower than the previous year (2006).

    1.8 over 1.1 times 4000 = ~ 6500 … less than 2009 ( = 5800 )
    5800 – 6500 = ZERO
    … which means ZERO ice, by VOLUME, come September.

    Now you cannot have an Area, or Extent, without Volume.
    Frankly I expect only the Greenland Fringe area to survive.

    Unless we put up some SO2 to cool things …
    I expect most — like 99% — of the USA & Europe are going to DIE when the Arctic’s 24-a-day Sunshine (“Midnight Sun”) area, gets warmer than the area South of it, the Ocean Currents stop, and, later when the 6-month Polar Night drops temps again, there are no warming currents for 3 months as they take that long to get all the way up from the Tropics, & this induces 300 mph winds which destroy every building North of about 10 degrees North latitude … sometime around January. Unless there is a flaw somewhere in this Logic.

    Please: someone find it !

    PS: Please understand this is NO JOKE. Think of this killing our nieghbors’ kids if we do not act. It’s like Russian Roulette with 2 billion kids.

  106. kadaka (13:07:31) :

    Where is the post from Anu saying how all this eggshell-thin new ice will be gone by September as we hit the lowest extent in a decade?

    Hey, you remembered “eggshell”, “September” and “a decade”, pretty good.
    Not quite how I used them though:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/28/skating-on-the-other-side-of-the-ice/#comment-355191

    Might as well breath normally until October – that’s when they determine if a new record summer melt has occurred:

    And you might as well get used to waiting – the Arctic probably won’t be ice free in the summer for another decade:

    Professor Wadhams said: “The change is happening so fast. It’s the result of this steady thinning over four decades that has brought it to a state where its summer melt is causing it to disappear.
    “It’s like the Arctic is covered with an egg shell and the egg shell has been thinning to the point where it is now just cracking completely.”

    Did you forget the “thinning” part ?

    I don’t know, something seems missing without such “Enjoy it now, you’ll be crying later!” posts. Gives a skeptic like me a warm fuzzy feeling and puts a nice smile on my face. Anyone else get that?

    Sure, enjoy your 2D extent data now.
    I would be too, if I didn’t know about this:

  107. Phil. (12:25:05) :

    Your alarmism makes you more irrelevant all the time. You are not even faking fairness.

  108. R. Gates (15:24:22) :

    Happy about Earth Day? This reveals more about you than your comments. You in the closet. Why not just come on out. Are you a member of Greenpeace? Or some other extreme environmental organization?

  109. charles Wilson (20:14:18) :

    Projecting melt proportional to the El Nino rating doesn’t fit the history well (especially in 1998!) The big reductions come when the Beaufort gyre pushes a lot of ice out along the east coast of Greenland. That happened less than average recently (though we could still get a big push this summer). We’ll know soon enough if you’re right.

    Meanwhile, the 11pm JAXA updates shows almost no ice decrease from yesterday.

    04,21,2010,13673125
    04,22,2010,13669219

    The plot now has this year’s extent breaking away from previous years.

  110. Charles Wilson, step away from the midnight onion, pickle and mustard midnight sandwich with an icecream sundae chaser. Your nightmare generator is in overdrive.

  111. R. Gates (15:24:22) :

    Why would anyone be happy about something that is to be observed on Lenin’s birthday? Some will immediately say that’s just a coincidence. But who would believe that? If nothing else, those who ‘care’ about Earth Day should get the date moved if it is a coincidence so it can never be said it’s observed on Lenin’s birthday. But it is not a coincidence. Lenin was part of the radical left of politics. Earth Day is from the radical left of politics.

    Are you a Marxist R. Gates?

  112. Anu (20:18:12) :

    Isn’t it convenient for you to chose 1980 as a starting point when the ‘coming ice age’ scare was ending? The earth started warming naturally in 1980 causing the trend in the graph you presented.

    You can ALWAYS be counted on to cherry pick.

    But I can tell you don’t really know what you are talking about.

    .

    BTW, how did you celebrate Lenin’s birthday today? Did you break a few eggs to make an omelet?

  113. Just as I predicted, Charles Wilson has come up with “unless someone puts up some SO2 to cool things”, etc., etc. blah blah…
    When the ice recovers to new 30 year highs, this will be the mantra: “The volcanoes saved us for a little while”, but “listen to Al Gore for his predictions of the blazing inferno the next couple hundred years or so.” And the “hurricanes, sunstroke, syphilis and varicose veins.”

    No ice to see here folks, move along, look at the crazy monkey!…

    Emperor’s New Clothes.

  114. The believers/trolls are sounding more desperate all the time. Maybe it’s part of that Monboit “fight back” thingy.

  115. bubbagyro (21:04:33) :

    And the “hurricanes, sunstroke, syphilis and varicose veins.”

    you forgot cannibalism

  116. Ecotretas (13:35:24) :

    “I ve done some analysis of one of the most northern weather stations: Eureka, in Nunavut Canada….http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2010/04/eureka.html”

    Seems the minus sign problem from Eureka gets smeared all over northern Canada because the stations are few and far between up there.
    ___________________________________________________________________________

    Thanks, Ecotretas. It appears the temperature extrapolations are dodgy. If one looks back over the past decade, the Arctic anomalies have mostly been in the ‘red zone’. Maybe these mistakes have been happening for years. I also wonder if the underwater volcanoes in the Gakkel Ridge have helped warm the Arctic sea and melt ice.
    Slightly OT, but the last time we had a lengthy quiet sun (1911-13) the following years (1914-15) were quite hot. Is this going to happen again?

  117. Arctic sea ice is largest in extent in the last 8 years. On January 1st it was lowest.

    Was that posted here .. of course not. :p

    Andy

  118. Gil Dewart (13:04:06) :

    Aside from admiring polar bears, from a discrete distance, the main interest in Arctic sea ice is its relatively high albedo. Note that on April 22, only 25% of solar radiation makes it through the atmosphere to the surface at the North Pole. On June 21, when the “solar altitude” will attain its maximum of 23.5 degrees, 47% of solar radiation will reach the surface at the pole (if the atmosphere is clear). Midsummer is the only time when the sea ice has a significant reflective effect.

    I cannot believe that even at midsummer the angle of incidence would allow much if any more heat absorption by the ocean than the ice. Even if it did, the amount of increased radiation of a sea quite a lot warmer than an insulating ice cover would more than make up for any increase.

    I reckon that less ice means more cooling, and is thus a negative feedback.

  119. Re: Anu (20:18:12)

    Close, but not it. I was thinking about this more recent post for the eggshell part.

    Well, I can’t speak for the CAGW groupies ( http://tinyurl.com/yemj8dj ) but personally, it would be fun if the summer melt ended up below 2009 levels – I enjoy hearing all the “spin” as to why the Arctic losing its summer ice soon is “natural”:

    If I have to wait till 2011 or 2012, not so fun.

    Look at that 2008 sea ice extent dive, starting within the “gray area” – things can happen fast in a warm Arctic… and CryoSat-2 will be watching the whole time. I wonder what happens when “the warmest oceans on record” flow up under the Arctic egg-shell-thin sea ice cap.
    We’ll see by October.

    Then after you got beat up despite going into your “tetherball” reply mode, you switched over to arguing about all that heat being stored deep in the oceans that has Trenberth in a lather, getting in “the last word” on April 18, while for the WUWT post from April 16 (two days earlier) “NCAR’s missing heat – they could not find it any-where,” where the whole Trenberth thing where he complained about the “missing heat” was discussed and debunked, you were a complete no-show.

    Yup, still arguing about all that great and terrible ocean heating while two days earlier everyone else was reading about Trenberth moaning how he doesn’t believe any of the many estimates of ocean heat content are correct, and he knows that missing heat must be somewhere.

    Oh, and he also said in the press release mentioned: “Compounding the problem, Earth’s surface temperatures have largely leveled off in recent years. Yet melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice, along with rising sea levels, indicate that heat is continuing to have profound effects on the planet.” And look here, the Arctic sea ice seems to be doing rather well. Well he still has those melting glaciers, that are sublimating in dry winds and getting covered in sunlight-absorbing soot. And the sea levels, whose rate of rise has dramatically slowed down. So I guess his case is still as sound as it ever was.

    Thank you for showing up for this post. Wouldn’t be the same without you. Thank you for playing. Have a nice day!

  120. Amino Acids in Meteorites (20:55:31) :
    Anu (20:18:12) :

    Isn’t it convenient for you to chose 1980 as a starting point when the ‘coming ice age’ scare was ending?
    Look at the graph again:

    It starts in 1979, not 1980.
    Can’t you take more than 3 seconds on a Comment and actually try to get some parts right ?
    BTW, that’s when the satellite data started.

    The earth started warming naturally in 1980 causing the trend in the graph you presented.
    Sure.
    “Naturally”.
    Those bungling climate scientists sure are lucky that Nature started cooperating and melting Arctic sea ice right after they made CO2 warnings saying that’s how the global warming of the 21st century would start…
    Which of “Nature’s” many tricks is she using this time ? 30 years of “just so” weather ? It’s the Arctic winds. No, sunspots. Cosmic rays modulated by solar wind ? Previously unknown very long term period ocean oscillations. Alien devices in the ocean trenches. Oscillating lithosphere heat content…
    Grasp as many straws as you want, they’re free.

    Is Nature done with melting Arctic sea ice for the next 30 years ? Did she tell you ?

    You can ALWAYS be counted on to cherry pick.
    Yeah, taking the entire set of Arctic sea ice volume data, instead of the “real” data of 2D area in which there is at least 15% sea ice in little arbitrary grid boxes.

    Which by the way, is done differently by different groups:

    Oh look, sea ice “extent” of 14.5 million square kilometers.

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    Oh wait, it’s “really” 13.65 million square kilometers.

    Well, which one is it ? And which is the “magic” value that makes it the most for this date in 8 years ?

    But I can tell you don’t really know what you are talking about.
    Why, did you get a third tier sciencey degree so you think you’re qualified to talk about science ? Read a book or two, did you ?

  121. Anu (23:27:37) :

    You did cherry pick the time frame. Was there less Arctic ice during the Medieval Warm Period? How much was there in the 1930’s when the earth was in a warm period? How much was there in the late 1940’s when the earth was cooling? You don’t talk about any other time frame but the last 30 years.

    There were very few scientist talking about co2 back then. But I notice you didn’t provide any links to what you say to prove what you say. You could watch The Great Global Warming Swindle to see that there really was only one that was noticed talking about co2 back then.

    BTW, I am not replying to you thinking that you are listening to anything I am saying. I know you won’t. I know you are a hardcore radical. You don’t want the science. You don’t care about the science. You misuse science. You care about things other than the science, and other than the truth. You have an agenda.

    I am only writing these things for others who may be reading so they can see more than just the propaganda of your side of the issue.

  122. Anu (23:27:37) :

    Is Nature done with melting Arctic sea ice for the next 30 years ? Did she tell you ?

    It is Al Gore and other alarmists who told you Arctic ice is disappearing. It was not the real data. Because looking at the data anyone can see Arctic ice is increasing.

    I see you are putting words in my mouth too. Those who love politics do that a lot. I’ve run into your kind before. In fact, you’re just about the only kind who argue for global warming.

  123. Anu (23:27:37) :

    But I can tell you don’t really know what you are talking about.
    Why, did you get a third tier sciencey degree so you think you’re qualified to talk about science ?

    No. It doesn’t take that much to figure you out.

  124. Anu (23:27:37) :

    It’s nice that you talk a lot. People can get a good look at what you’re like.

    [ Can you two cool it a bit? Your getting close to personal attacks. -mod]

  125. kadaka (23:16:57) :

    Anu is a no show in some threads. But not in this one about Arctic Ice. Arctic Ice is one of global warmings sacred babies. They have to do all they can to make it look like global warming is making Arctic Ice disappear—despite what reality says. They have to tell people to not look at what is really happening but look at what their ‘scientists’ say about Arctic ice, and what their predictions from computers say about it.

    And it seems the more they talk the more they feel they are winning the debate.

  126. Anu (23:27:37) :

    It starts in 1979, not 1980.

    Sort of petty, don’t you think?

    BTW, you didn’t tell me what you did to celebrate Lenin’s birthday today.

  127. Anu (23:27:37) :

    Your graph is an anomaly graph. Looking at the actual difference in volume (something you didn’t point out) it shows very little volume was lost. But your graph makes it look like a lot. All volume lost was due to natural variations. Arctic Ice does not stay at the same size. Sometimes it increases through time. Sometimes it decreases.

    Maybe you can enlarge that graph and then get Al Gore to ride his lift up to the top of it and scare little children.

  128. For anyone replicating my figures for the AMSR-E chart integral, you might have found they were a bit wrong. These are the corrected figures
    2003 10.839MsqKm
    2004 10.657MsqKm
    2005 10.345MsqKm
    2006 10.220MsqKm
    2007 09.966MsqKm
    2008 10.461MsqKm
    2009 10.431MsqKm

  129. Who is Andrew J Weaver?

    He is an AGW fanatic, and has been for a long time.

    He works from the University of Victoria, and this is what they say about themselves:
    “The University of Victoria is a leading Canadian research university, and has a reputation as a centre of innovative and interdisciplinary research. UVic researchers are making major contributions, advancing and applying knowledge for the benefit of society. UVic faculty rank among the top universities in Canada in research funding from national granting councils.”
    _____________________________________________________

    RESEARCH PROPOSALS SUBMITTED AND UNDER REVIEW

    2009 Water Security and Community Solutions Network
    Letter of Intent submitted to the Network of Centres of Excellence program of the Government of Canada on February 26, 2009.
    Network Co-Directors: Andrew Weaver and Rosemary Ommer, The University of Victoria
    Co-Applicants: The Directors of Six Regional Nodes including Ralph Matthews as Director of the Node for Western Canada.

    The proposed network will focus on the relationship between climate change and water related issues (including fresh water, oceans, and sea ice) as they affect the security and human well-being of communities throughout Canada, as well as those industries (e.g. Hydro Eclectic; Fishing; Forestry; Agriculture; Tourism: Shipping; Vintners) whose economic well-being is also affected by water related issues). The NCE is intended to link science and social science with communities and industries. The approach taken will be largely ‘bottom up’, in that social and economic researchers, working with communities and industries, will identify the critical current and future water related needs and impacts that affect social and economic well-being. Working from the perspectives of these needs and the relevant social and impacts, scientific research will undertake efforts to identify potential solutions that involve both mitigation and adaptation to changing environmental conditions.

    Amount of Funding to be Requested: In accordance with NCE guidelines, available funding will be on the scale of $3,000,000.00 per year for five years, potentially renewable after review for an additional five years.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    …As can be seen, a great deal of money and reputations are at stake if the whole “global warming” fraud collapses, and these people have to find some real work of value to do instead of getting paid to spread their alarmist lying propaganda around.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    This is Andrew J Weaver’s contribution to AGW, and the links from his web page to various other institutions:

    Andrew J Weaver http://climate.uvic.ca/people/weaver/
    School of Earth and Ocean Sciences
    University of Victoria
    Ocean, Earth & Atmospheric Sciences Building
    3800 Finnerty Road (Ring Road)
    PO Box 3065 STN CSC
    Victoria, BC, V8W 3V6, Canada

    Tel: (250) 472-4006; Fax: (250) 472-4004;
    I can be reached by email through Wanda Lewis at wlewis@uvic.ca

    Book: “Keeping our Cool: Canada in a Warming World”
    Available online for CDN$15.20

    http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/Keeping-Our-Cool-Andrew-Weaver/9780143168256-item.html?ref=Search+Books%3a+%2527Keeping+our+cool%2527

    Product Description:
    “Monster wildfires in Australia, January golfers in PEI, ruined fruit crops in California, starving polar bears in the North. Climate change is no longer a vague threat. Over the next few centuries climate changes will be greater and occur faster than at any time in 10,000 years. Brilliantly researched, Keeping Our Cool is an engaging examination of global warming, with specific emphasis on Canada. Weaver explains the levels of greenhouse gas emissions needed to stabilize the climate and offers solutions and a path toward a sustainable future.”

    Climate Modelling Group

    http://wikyonos.seos.uvic.ca/climate-lab.html

    Journal of Climate http://jclim.rutgers.edu/
    “The Journal of Climate publishes articles on climate research and, therefore, welcomes manuscripts concerned with large-scale variability of the atmosphere, oceans, and land surface; changes in the climate system (including those caused by human activities); and climate simulation and prediction. Papers on the physics, dynamics, and chemistry of the atmosphere of the earth and other planets, with emphasis on the quantitative and deductive aspects of the subject, should be sent to the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences; papers that pertain to weather analysis and prediction and observed and modeled circulations, including techniques development and model validation for both atmosphere and oceans, should be directed to the Monthly Weather Review ; those that are applications oriented (e.g., environmental health, weather modification, air pollution meteorology, hydrology, and agricultural and forest meteorology) and those that are applied climatology research related to the use of climate information in decision making, impact assessments, seasonal climate forecast applications and verification, climate risk and vulnerability, development of climate monitoring tools, urban and local climates, and climate as it relates to the environment and society, should be directed to the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology; those dealing with forecasting techniques and forecasting verification, including mesoscale and synoptic-scale case studies that have direct applicability to forecasting, should be directed to Weather and Forecasting; research emphasizing instrumentation or techniques for acquiring or interpreting data should be sent to the Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology.”

    PUblications 1987-2010

    http://climate.uvic.ca/people/weaver/weaver-publications.html

    Victoria Weather Station

    http://www.victoriaweather.ca/

    “The UVic School-Based Weather Station Network is made up of stations mounted on schools in and around Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. We have recently expanded the network to include schools in Lake Cowichan, Qualicum and Parksville (see also http://www.nanaimoweather.ca). Data collected at each station are gathered in a central database here at UVic. See About the Network http://www.victoriaweather.ca/about.php for more details and contact information.

    We are funded by NSERC PromoScience in partnership with British Columbia School Districts 61 (Victoria), 62 (Sooke), 63 (Saanich), 64 (Gulf Islands), 68 (Nanaimo), 69 (Qualicum), 70 (Alberni), 79 (Cowichan Valley) and AChannel Victoria.”

  130. Anu’s tactic to tackle skeptic is similar to the sort that classical physicist uses to attack quantum mechanic and relativity, as he rely on the use of absurdity by comparing our theory to “Alien devices in the ocean trenches”, as if when something is absurd it ought to be wrong.

    One can see this type of methodology in science is quite problematic as the concept of absurdity is quite arbitrary, Aristotle will find Newton mechanic absurd, and so will Newton find Einstein’s. This reason behind this is simply because one will find any theory that does not bare resemblance to what they used to believe absurd, regardless whether their new or old theory is right or not.

    I believe in order to establish whether a theory is correct or wrong, we should stick to the matter of fact, and honestly recount what we have seen regardless of how absurd it is. I believe as all the member of the climate skeptic understand that whether the world is continuing to warm or not are not part of our concern. What we are arguing as always is whether carbon dioxide we emitted have anything to do with it. And as the matter of fact shows in Medieval Warming Period and in Mini ice age there is a great change of temperature, more extreme to what we have experience nowadays, despites there is extremely little carbon emition done by human in that period. All this simply show carbon dioxide have little to no correlation to a sudden change of temperature. If you attempt to dispute this fact and still say carbon dioxide causes this change. Then you are basically saying the same thing as Alien device as ocean trench, which is not absurd, but simply not valid.

    I have no scientific qualification in university, I am just a undergraduate doing philosophy. But if you want to argue with me about methodology of science I shall not be fear to accept the challenge. As you don’t seems to me to have any type of scientific qualification, as the quality of the post you wrote does not show it, nor you have any common understand of how science actually work, and how to make a sound argument.

    (Apology for my poor English, Chinese is my first language. I must admit even people in Mainland China will make better trolling post then the climate alarmist)

  131. Erik (11:48:34) :

    I think Bastardi is surprised because he’s mis-labelling what is going on as a recovery. 2007 was an extraordinary event. 2008 and 2009 only took things back to the long term downward trend. The problem was that pro-warmers went crazy for the 2007 result. They should have stuck with the long term trend.

    So rather than worrying about what is happening this year or 2007 we should be looking at what’s driving arctic ice. Temperature and winds are well explained. The potential role of PDO is interesting and should become clearer in the next few years.

  132. Anu (23:27:37)

    ““Naturally”.
    Those bungling climate scientists sure are lucky that Nature started cooperating and melting Arctic sea ice right after they made CO2 warnings saying that’s how the global warming of the 21st century would start…”

    Well, we skeptics are just as lucky that, just at the time we get vocal about questioning AGW, around 2006, climate starts cooling and Arctic ice recovering. Maybe climate is driven by who shouts the loudest.

    The word “natural” is useless and has no role in scientific dicsussion. It is so subjective and even metaphysical that its presence in climate debate is an embarrassment. Humans (H. sapiens) are part of nature too. Our CO2 emissions are as “natural” as our farts. Its all natural, even nuclear bombs.

  133. Anu (23:27:37) :
    Apparently, PIOMAS is a model that hindcasts Ice Volume prior to 2003 by extending the TREND LINE as measured by 2003-2007.

    as the caption implies:
    “Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly from PIOMAS and the NASA ICESat satellite in November for each year relative to the 2003-2007 mean ice volume. ICEsat Ice volume is from Kwok et al. 2009. ”

    And the graph you give above:

    is the PIOMAS Model output.

    Ah, nothing like a Computer Model of an Anomaly to really scare the hide off the uninitiated.

    Resistance is Futile, You will be Assimilated:
    “The purpose of this page is to visualize recent variations of total Arctic Sea Ice Volume in the context of longer term variability. Arctic Sea Ice Volume is an important indicator of climate change because it accounts for variations in sea ice thickness as well as sea ice extent. Total Arctic sea ice volume cannot currently be observed continuously. Observations from satellites, Navy submarines, moorings, and field measurements are limited in space or time. The assimilation of observations into numerical models, currently provides one way of estimating sea ice volume changes on a continuing basis. Volume estimates using age of sea ice as a proxy for ice thickness are another useful method (see here and here). Comparisons with observations help test our understanding of sea ice conditions in the Arctic.

    It’s that Captain Dorothy Janeway that did it. Threw a tub of hot water at the Wicked Borg Ice Queen of the North and missed, hitting the Sea Ice instead.

  134. Re Andrew Weaver:

    “….for publishing articles that he says ‘poison’ the debate.”

    What debate? Haven’t they told us that the science is settled and the debate is over? How can you poison a debate that’s over?

  135. rb Wright…

    Normally rational Weather Channel? Which WC are you watching? They’re AGW fan boys there and have been for years.

  136. AndyW (22:16:48) :

    Arctic sea ice is largest in extent in the last 8 years. On January 1st it was
    lowest.

    Was that posted here .. of course not. :p

    Andy

    Actually, Andy, it was.

  137. Jim Radig (18:57:41) :

    Re Pembina –Thanks, that’s appreciated. The bird is not yet in hand, so I’d like to keep your plan in play. Please drop me a line at geo[at]georule.net so I can contact you if necessary.

  138. Gee… with this “unprecedented” rate of ice growth, we must be at the tipping point into a new Ice age. The albedo will be racing downhill as this ice accumulates. It’s an unstoppable trend!! We’re all doomed I say, doomed!
    /sarcoff>

    Or maybe we do need to start spinning things as doom. Seems to always work…

  139. Stu (13:29:02) :

    “geoff pohanka (11:35:55) :

    Not only is there more Arctic ice today than in past years, the ice is also thicker.
    Thicker ice melts more slowly.

    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=04&fd=18&fy=1980&sm=04&sd=18&sy=2010”

    Is ‘thickness’ usually synonynous with ‘concentration’ here? These maps show a more purplish colour when the ice is more concentrated, but is the ice actually thicker? R Gates has said recently that the ice this year is a lot thinner than other years and that is a cause of concern for him. I suppose it is possible that the ice can be more concentrated but also be thinner, but I’m actually a little confused about these two terms. Is there data available which shows ice thickness as opposed to concentration?

    Anyone help out?

    R Gates?

    ————–

    Stu,

    I posted this graph a few days ago, and you might want to look it over:

    This measures the volume of the sea ice. When looking at the concentration, that does NOT take into account the volume, where volume is the more significant factor when it comes to melting. Concentration simply refers to how much open water there is, or how closely packed the ice flows are, but not the thickness of that ice. The volume chart above should be (and is) cause for concern as it really gives a better idea for the overall state of the sea ice. The extremely negative AO index of this winter which caused the snow in lower latitudes such as Florida, also brought very high temps to the arctic, and even though that meant less ice being forced through areas such as the Fram strait, and so we had more multi-year ice building up, that multi-year ice is not nearly as thick as it would have been if the arctic had been very cold for several years on end. The graph above really gets to the point about about why I see the summer low minimum at around 4.5 million sq. km (based on JAXA data). The ice is thin, and when the heart of the melt season hits (June, July, August) it will go fast because its volume is so low. For example, look at this Bering Sea chart:

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.2.html

    and notice the “bump up” in March and April, much talked about here on WUWT, quickly melted away because the average thickness of the “bump” was only 4 to 12 inches, which is barely anything when it comes to sea ice…

  140. E.M.Smith (08:22:11) :

    Gee… with this “unprecedented” rate of ice growth, we must be at the tipping point into a new Ice age. The albedo will be racing downhill as this ice accumulates. It’s an unstoppable trend!! We’re all doomed I say, doomed!
    /sarcoff>

    Or maybe we do need to start spinning things as doom. Seems to always work…
    _______________________________________________________________________________

    You could try the spin on the US Congress critters. They have certainly proved to be susceptible to spin…. or is that bribes? I keep forgetting

  141. stevengoddard said:

    On January 1, Arctic ice extent was actually the highest in the last five years.

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

    —————

    All very interesting Steve…and if it continues over say, 5 or 10 years, might even be important. More importantly is this dowward trend in sea ice volume:

    That has occured over the past 30+ years. Volume is a far better indicator of the state of the cryosphere than simple extent…but of course, you know that.

  142. The DMI Arctic temp record shows that the profile for summer temps (above the melt line) have varied very little year to year from 1958 to 2009. Clearly, global warming in the Arctic is missing.

  143. I know that wind & currents are the most important factors for Arctic ice melt, but don’t know what those factors are for ice formation. Is it just temperature? and if so, is it a linear relationship or what? or is it more complicated, as I suspect?

    Sorry for these basic questions, but I couldn’t find the answers elsewhere. Perhaps someone can point me in the right direction.

  144. kadaka (23:16:57) :
    See, don’t citations make the discussion more precise ?

    If this summer’s minimum Arctic sea ice extent is less than 2009, it might still be only the 3rd smallest for this decade, hence your statement:
    kadaka (13:07:31) :
    Where is the post from Anu saying how all this eggshell-thin new ice will be gone by September as we hit the lowest extent in a decade?

    didn’t apply to the post you cited.
    But thanks for clearing up what you were talking about.

    where the whole Trenberth thing where he complained about the “missing heat” was discussed and debunked, you were a complete no-show.
    Yeah, sorry I can’t join in on every single thread at WUWT. I have limited free time. But I have talked about ocean heat content at length on some threads here, for instance this Comment and several after:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/15/noaa-says-warmest-march-on-record/#comment-370593

    And for the record, I hope Dr. Trenberth’s arguments for getting funding for additional climate observing instruments are successful. Things like Argo are still in the beginning stages…

  145. PIOMAS is a hindcasting model based on five years of ICESat data, attempting to determine with that and the NSIDC extent data what volume was in the past.

    I wonder how long until they have their “hide the decline” moment?

    It’s a worthy effort, and I applaud them for it –but I won’t be putting any particular faith in it until they’ve had at least another decade of real data from the new Euro satellite to tune their models with.

  146. MiniB,

    Wind, currents, air temp, water temp, and salinity are all factors. Tons of great info on this all over the net…

  147. Amino Acids in Meteorites (07:41:50) :

    Don’t beat yourself up. They have more flavors of model kool-aid hidden in every nook and cranny than any single imagination can run wild with.

    Today’s menu has “You’ll be Sorry” soup with “Doomsday Trend” Tuna Melts.
    For dessert, we have “Arctic Reversal is Unimportant” baked Alaska.

    Afterwards, we’ll be selecting the next victim to sacrifice to the Angry ModelGod : PIOMAS

  148. geo (10:05:41) :

    “PIOMAS is a hindcasting model based on five years of ICESat data, attempting to determine with that and the NSIDC extent data what volume was in the past.”

    I had a look at this too – I love it when numerical model results are presented as “data”!

    Hold it – what’s this???

    Oh No!! It looks like the numerical model hindcasted low ice volume in 1948! Need to fix the code…

  149. stevengoddard (08:52:51) :

    AndyW (22:16:48) :

    On January 1, Arctic ice extent was actually the highest in the last five years.

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

    Ah Steven, Andy is just a bit behind on the narrative. The extant and area numbers are no longer scary enough, so now it is all about the volume (and I’m not referring to how loud the alarmists are screaming).

    For example, both R. Gates and Anu have now presented the same terrifying anomoly graph. Strangely enough, you can actually back that URL up to a directory (it’s not blocked) and find this helpful explanatory page:

    Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly
    Sea Ice Volume is calculated using the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) developed at APL/PSC by Dr. J. Zhang and collaborators. Anomalies for each day are calculated relative to the average over the 1979 -2009 period for that day to remove the annual cycle. The model mean seasonal cycle of sea ice volume ranges from 28,600 km^3 in April to 14,400 km^3 in September. The blue line represents the trend calculated from January 1 1979 to the most recent date indicated on the figure. Total Arctic Ice Volume for March 2010 is 20,300 km^3, the lowest over the 1979-2009 period and 38% below the 1979 maximum. September Ice Volume was lowest in 2009 at 5,800 km^3 or 67% below its 1979 maximum. Shaded areas represent one and two standard deviations of the anomaly from the trend. Updates will be generated at 3-5 day intervals.

    BTW,

    Total Arctic sea ice volume cannot currently be observed continuously. Observations from satellites, Navy submarines, moorings, and field measurements are limited in space or time. The assimilation of observations into numerical models, currently provides one way of estimating sea ice volume changes on a continuing basis. Volume estimates using age of sea ice as a proxy for ice thickness are another useful method (see here and here). Comparisons with observations help test our understanding of sea ice conditions in the Arctic.

    So I guess we go with these modeled results.

    Now, the terrifying anomaly graph says the current rate of decline, which of course shall always remain steady, is 3.3 thousand cubic kilometers a decade. The helpful page says “Total Arctic Ice Volume for March 2010 is 20,300 km^3…” Crank the numbers, and 61 1/2 years from last March we’ll run out of sea ice.

    And remember, this too shall come to pass as we are already committed to further warming due to the emissions already released. Given the long residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere of 100 years and other effects, we’ll get that warming even if we shut down civilization tomorrow.

    The Good News: If you can get an accurate map precisely showing the land/water boundaries, can calculate land contours after the expected sea level rise, and have some money on hand, you can purchase some cheap land where your descendants can build some nice houses on a beachfront. The water might be too cold for a swim except for a real brief period in the summer, but wait a bit longer and that might improve…

  150. Frank K. (10:35:41) :

    Niiiiice. I wonder how long until we can expect their thousand-year reconstruction at PIOMAS, showing that arctic ice was also greater during the so-called MWP?

    From what I can see, they don’t seem to be showing error bars on their graph. I could be wrong, but the bars they have look like sigmas to me. I wonder if they even have a stab at what the error bars would be with a 5-year calibration?

  151. From Anu (09:57:29) :

    See, don’t citations make the discussion more precise ?

    You should avoid talking to someone who knows machining about being precise.

    You can check a piece on on the floor with dial calipers you can trust within .001″, put it on a surface plate in inspection and read to a half with the height gauge, throw it on the optical comparator and measure to half a tenth, and it still won’t change that the position is off by .037.

    Being precise and being correct are separate things, darling. More citations may not make a claim any less wrong.

  152. Amino Acids in Meteorites (00:47:09) :
    Anu (23:27:37) :

    Your graph is an anomaly graph.
    You mean this one, from the Polar Science Center at the Applied Physics Laboratory of the University of Washington ?

    Yes, I was tipped off by the Title: Arctic Ice Volume Anomaly and Trend from PIOMAS

    Looking at the actual difference in volume (something you didn’t point out) it shows very little volume was lost. But your graph makes it look like a lot.
    Feel free to read the graph without my “pointing out” what it shows.
    But since you brought it up, let’s look at “actual difference in volume”. In 1979, the graph shows an anomaly of +5 thousand cubic kilometers of sea ice. 5000 km^3 is equal to an area of 5,000,000 km^2 with ice 1 meter thick.

    Now look at the summer of 2009: an anomaly of about -8 thousand cubic kilometers.
    Total anomaly swing in 30 years: a loss of 13,000 km^3.

    How much sea ice area is there at the summer minimums these days ? About 4 million km^2:

    So, 4 million km^2 would have to lose 3.25 meters of ice thickness to equal that volume of ice loss.

    And how thick is sea ice ?

    http://nsidc.org/seaice/characteristics/index.html

    First year ice is about 0.3 to 1 meter thick. Multiyear ice is typically 2 to 4 meters thick.
    Not much ice left to lose at this rate.

    All volume lost was due to natural variations. Arctic Ice does not stay at the same size. Sometimes it increases through time. Sometimes it decreases.
    Sure, since humans are part of “Nature”.
    When the Arctic ice disappears some summer soon, you can use your little tautology to “prove” it was all natural.

    Maybe you can enlarge that graph and then get Al Gore to ride his lift up to the top of it and scare little children.
    Were you scared during that scene ?

  153. Bart (02:29:39) :
    Anu (23:27:37) :
    See geo (16:02:13) .

    That’s a better point than “only 2D extent” matters, as some people here seem to think. Even 2D sea ice area is more significant than 2D extent – but 3D is the most significant – sea ice volume.

    As for geo’s claim that they have “a 5 year observational result” with the rest being a “guess”, that’s not quite accurate:

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php

    Model and Assimilation Procedure

    PIOMAS is a numerical model with components for sea ice and ocean and the capacity for assimilating observations. For the Ice Volume simulations shown here, sea ice concentration information from the NSIDC near-real time product are assimilated into the model to improve ice thickness estimates. Atmospheric information to drive the model, specifically wind, surface air temperature, and cloud cover to compute solar and long wave radiation are specified from the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis. The Pan-Arctic ocean model is forced with input from a global ocean model at its open boundaries.

    Model Validation

    PIOMAS has been extensively validated through comparisons with observations from US-Navy submarines, moorings, and satellites. The example on the left shows a comparison of PIOMAS-derived ice volume anomalies with anomalies measured by the NASA ICEsat Satellite. More details on the model, assimilation procedures and validation results can be found here

    Note that the model predicted more Arctic sea ice volume than ICESat measured:

    I wouldn’t mind seeing people argue about how accurate that Arctic sea ice volume chart is, but to say it is a “guess” or irrelevant, is incorrect.
    And as I’ve said before, I look forward to the forthcoming CryoSat-2 data – it’s already in orbit and being prepped.

  154. Anu (11:49:43) :
    “Sure, since humans are part of “Nature”.
    When the Arctic ice disappears some summer soon, you can use your little tautology to “prove” it was all natural.”

    Idiotic response. Firstly what he meant by nature is factor that is not attributed by human activity. You either misunderstood him or just purely fainting stupid.

    Even if you prove that what he say is a tautology, it still does not imply that losing ice are due to human activity. All you done is to show he is not saying any matter of fact in the reality, as in this sense it imply both human and non human or both causes losing ice.

    The Logical form is∀x((Hx∨~Hx)→Nx), which means for all object that consist the predict of human activity OR not human activity it implies it is a nature process.

    However the idiocy of you reveal itself here, as you try to suggests his tautology automatic implies losing ice are in fact primary due to human activity. Which the logical form of your argument will be:

    ∀x((Hx∨~Hx)→Nx)

    And ∀x(Lx→Nx) (For all lose of ice it implies a natural event)

    And your conclusion is

    L”z”→H”z”

    And this reasoning is entirely force, as there is a possible scenario that the conclusion can be L”z” → ~H”z” , from the two previous proposition made by you. Whether the proposition is true or not I do not want to comment here, you can look at my previous post. But all I can say is that your logical reasoning is rally faulty and certainly does not fit to perform any scientific research. Though I must admit your way of reasoning are more simaler to a troll, as all you do are ad hom attack. “OMG he made a tautology he must be a freaking idiot!!!!” Seriously if this is all you climate alarmist does in your so call so call argument, I can assure you that you need to improve your logical reasoning before you argue in anywhere, and stop recommending people to read more science book etc as I can be quite sure that you either read none or lack to logical capability to analyze what it means anyway.

  155. From Anu (11:49:43) :

    You mean this one, from the Polar Science Center at the Applied Physics Laboratory of the University of Washington ?
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png

    Please, you’ve been waving that graph around like a bank robber brandishing a firearm. Except knowledgeable people here realize that model only fires blanks.

    From the helpful page explaining that graph:

    The assimilation of observations into numerical models, currently provides one way of estimating sea ice volume changes on a continuing basis. Volume estimates using age of sea ice as a proxy for ice thickness are another useful method…

    The last line really gives it away. 2007 saw the great “flushing out” of the Arctic. It is assumed, despite any warming or previous shrinking trends, that multi-year ice must be thick. It is assumed that the new ice, formed in the recovery since 2007, must be thin. This is used in a “useful method” for estimating (read guessing with computers) the volume of ice.

    Thus we have identified a possible source of error, since if there was lots of multi-year ice that just barely survived the summer melt then the estimate would show lots of non-existent volume. So estimates prior to the 2007 event could have been high, and the volume could actually be going up.

    This goes along with the work of the esteemed Dr. David Barber, reported on here. As it was said at the Greenbang Blog:

    Satellite data in 2008 and 2009 appeared to indicate that Arctic sea ice cover had started to grow again after reaching a record low, leading some to claim that global warming was reversing. However, University of Manitoba researcher David Barber found that wasn’t the case after he viewed the ice firsthand this September from an ice breaker travelling through the southern Beaufort Sea.

    What the satellites had identified as thick, multiyear ice, it turned out, was in fact thin, “rotten” ice, Barber and his colleagues discovered.

    Thus we have confirmation that the satellites can get it wrong, which throws off the volume estimates. Thus the accuracy of these dire volume loss predictions is thrown in doubt.

    And given the strong regrowth this year, looks like we got lots of strong thick fresh new ice, while the multi-year is actually weak thin rotten ice. And isn’t that a good thing for the Arctic, and the planet?

  156. Feuillet (03:05:34) :

    Thanks for your amusing Comment. And it’s refreshing to see such honesty on these threads:
    I have no scientific qualification in university, I am just a undergraduate doing philosophy.

    I was merely pointing out that saying the recent warming of the planet is “natural” is not an explanation – it is logically equivalent to saying “it is the will of Anu” (the Sumerian sky-god, who helped start Uruk, the very first city).

    When Einstein predicted that the gravity of stars would bend light, and it was observed (during a solar eclipse), this is science in action. Saying “so what, light bending around stars is natural” is irrelevance in action.

  157. phlogiston (04:25:40) :

    Well, we skeptics are just as lucky that, just at the time we get vocal about questioning AGW, around 2006, climate starts cooling and Arctic ice recovering. Maybe climate is driven by who shouts the loudest.

    Yes, Arctic sea ice “recovered” nicely in summer 2007. Good timing.

    The word “natural” is useless and has no role in scientific dicsussion. It is so subjective and even metaphysical that its presence in climate debate is an embarrassment. Humans (H. sapiens) are part of nature too. Our CO2 emissions are as “natural” as our farts. Its all natural, even nuclear bombs.
    Agreed.
    Saying that the planet warming up is “natural” is a tautology.

    Competent skeptics like Dr. Lindzen should be working on explanations of why the planet is warming. I don’t think Dr. Svensmark’s research will be fruitful, but at least he has a testable hypothesis. Sniping from the sidelines is not science – I would take people like Dr. Baliunas and Dr. Soon more seriously if they had research on large numbers of G2V type stars showing significant TSI variations over decade time scales, but I’m not so interested in their take on general circulation climate models.

  158. rbateman (04:27:47) :

    Anu (23:27:37) :
    Apparently, PIOMAS is a model that hindcasts Ice Volume prior to 2003 by extending the TREND LINE as measured by 2003-2007.

    Nope, apparently not.
    “Hindcast” is when they take known starting conditions, then run a model to “predict” future developments – then compare these predictions to known results that have already occurred. It is a technique for checking how well a model is matching measured reality.

    And “extending the trend line” is a weak “prediction” method, suitable for undergraduates guessing summer sea ice extent:

    http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2009_outlook/july_report/downloads/pdf/panarctic/12_KaleschkeHalfmann_JulyReport_JuneData.pdf

    The Pan-Arctic Ice-Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) is neither:

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/model.html

    (although they probably tested the model with some hindcasts).

    And navy submarine, mooring, and field measurements are not “guesses”. They are precise data that just don’t have the full coverage of satellites – hence the desire to relaunch CryoSat (since the first one crashed). By the way, ICESat gave data until October 2009 – I’m sure the data will show up in some PIOMAS graph soon.

    The Applied Physics Laboratory of the University of Washington is not the only group interested in sea ice age and thickness:

    http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/seaice.html

    I assume you are looking forward to the coming years of CryoSat-2 data proving that everything is just fine in the Arctic.

  159. Amino Acids in Meteorites (07:41:50) :

    rbateman (04:27:47) :

    I should have went to the page and read how the graph was made like you did. DOH!

    Yeah, perhaps a lot more reading is called for.
    Couldn’t hurt.

  160. AndyW (22:16:48) :

    Arctic sea ice is largest in extent in the last 8 years. On January 1st it was lowest.

    Was that posted here .. of course not. :p

    Andy

    Because some skeptics overstate their case, there is confusion over what we’re skeptical about. Consider the difference between GW, AGW and CAGW.

    Virtually everyone agrees that the globe has been getting warmer for quite some time. That’s GW and you don’t even see that abbreviation much because it’s not where the debate lies.

    Many skeptics doubt that the GW is AGW — that anthropogenic CO2 caused the GW (or, at least, caused most of it).

    All skeptics doubt that the warming is catastrophic. We don’t see any catastrophe coming. The GW isn’t CAGW.

    Now back to your point. Record low sea ice will happen semi-regularly unless GW isn’t true. But GW is obviously happening. Thus, record low sea ice isn’t news to anyone.

  161. rbateman (10:25:11) :

    Amino Acids in Meteorites (07:41:50) :

    Don’t beat yourself up. They have more flavors of model kool-aid hidden in every nook and cranny than any single imagination can run wild with.

    Today’s menu has “You’ll be Sorry” soup with “Doomsday Trend” Tuna Melts.
    For dessert, we have “Arctic Reversal is Unimportant” baked Alaska.

    Afterwards, we’ll be selecting the next victim to sacrifice to the Angry ModelGod : PIOMAS

    I used to wonder how a Bronze-Age illiterate peasant transported 45 centuries into the future would view Science. Now, I have a pretty good idea…

  162. From Anu (13:25:05) :

    Competent skeptics like Dr. Lindzen should be working on explanations of why the planet is warming.

    But Hansen agreed there has been no statistically significant warming from 1995 to the present. Trenberth mentioned in a press release “…Earth’s surface temperatures have largely leveled off in recent years.” Thus if we don’t have warming worth worrying about right now, what’s the point in taking a lot of time finding explanations for the warming (besides the PDO and a host of other explanations that certain people apparently don’t notice)?

    We have better things to do, like as was done with this authoritative mathematical model outlining the proper response to a certain plague that could devastate humanity quickly. This is clearly a much better use of scientific efforts, as we humans cannot afford to be ill-prepared should such a plague strike. This could suddenly take out humanity now, without warning as soon as it pops up, as opposed to theoretical damages from something that is not currently statistically happening that will really only do noticeable significant damage several decades from now.

    Really, people need to have better priorities in life. Worry about what could hurt us now, suddenly, find those solutions now, and stop worrying about things we likely won’t even notice any large effects from for generations until we get those important things taken care of first. Priorities, people, priorities!

  163. Anu (11:49:43) :

    “When the Arctic ice disappears some summer soon, you can use your little tautology to ‘prove’ it was all natural.”

    Let’s look at what has occurred naturally over the past 10 millennia: click

    No tautology there. That is the null hypothesis: natural climate variability. That hypothesis has never been falsified. And since we have no satellite pictures of polar ice cover for 9,970 of the past 10,000 years, we don’t know its extent, or even if there was Arctic ice cover. What we do know is that current temperatures are about average.

    Going back further in time we see that temperatures tended to be much colder on average: click

    There is no measurable evidence showing that the recent change in CO2 levels is the cause of the recent warming. It is a correlation, and probably a coincidence. In the past, rising CO2 levels have always followed rising temperatures.

    CO2 began steadily rising a century and a half ago, but steadily rising temperatures have not resulted. In fact, the most recent temperature trend has happened before: click

    No doubt some rent-seeking scientist has already written a paper with a convoluted, evidence-free explanation of the ΔT – ΔCO2 divergence, which certainly violates Occam’s Razor, to help prop up the true believers, and hopefully snag a fat grant in the process. After all, if we just look around, there are spurious correlations everywhere, not just with CO2 and temperature: click

  164. Anu (13:05:55) :
    “I was merely pointing out that saying the recent warming of the planet is “natural” is not an explanation”
    Now here is the devil in the detail. In my first post I have argue that “I believe in order to establish whether a theory is correct or wrong, we should stick to the matter of fact, and honestly recount what we have seen regardless of how absurd it is.”

    What this means is, if we don’t know something, we do not pretend to know it. This is as simple as a child being asked about how many T shirt are there inside his drawer, if he does not know it he should not randomly toss out a number. A lot of people, both side in the debate, believe that a good scientist must give up a explanation to the any natural phenomenon, regardless of whether they know explanation is proved to be valid or not. As if one need to support AGW if solar activity theory are proven to be false, or vice versa, regardless of whether the new replacement theory will be as crap as the previous one.

    Anu is exactly one of these people, who try to argue that just because we don’t give a explanation we are “bad scientist” and hence we ought to choose AGW for the sake of having a explanation. I have already argue why AGW is not a good explanation in the first post, which I shall not repeat here. Whether or not other replacement theory such as solar activity can replace it’s importance is a another question, but whatever the answer is it will not change the fact AGW is still a crap one. All I can declare is, WE KNOW NO EXPLANATION AND LETS START PRETEND WE DO AND TOSSES A NEW ONE.

    Now to be just I also need to say the people in the skeptic side does this as well. It is simply not needed. If a theory have it’s failure to predict, it is falsified already, without having to do anymore things. Galileo disproved Aristotle’s theory of mechanic without giving a new explanation of gravity as Newton did, but no one in his time, and now, ever doubt he ever disproved Aristotle’s theory.

    Just as a last word to Anu, he also said “I was merely pointing out that saying the recent warming of the planet is “natural” is not an explanation – it is logically equivalent to saying “it is the will of Anu””

    I am sorry, your incompetence in logic have do you no good again, both proposition are not logical equivalence. The former one is a tautology, it is a statement that give us absolutely nothing and made no attempt to do so. Yet the latter one is a Synthetic statement, it attempt to give us knowledge of the reality, it is just fail to do so. The former statement is like saying “you will either win or not win this gamble”, duh! it is always true and give no advice to any gambler. Whereas the latter statement is like saying “you will win all gamble if you slap yourself in the face”. This is a advice to a gambler, some one can actually base on this in their decision,but is just wrong.

    Both statement will probably do no one good when they try to use it to predict. But their logical nature is entirely different and please do not mix them together. IN FACT PLEASE DON’T USE ANY LOGICAL LANGUAGE WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING WHAT IT MEANS, THANK YOU!!!!!!!!

  165. kadaka (KD Knoebel) (10:51:20) :

    Ah Steven, Andy is just a bit behind on the narrative. The extant and area numbers are no longer scary enough, so now it is all about the volume (and I’m not referring to how loud the alarmists are screaming).

    For example, both R. Gates and Anu have now presented the same terrifying anomoly graph.
    I saw R. Gates mention the graph a few days ago, and thanked him for the link:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/18/new-weekly-feature-wuwt-sea-ice-news/#comment-373683

    You might not have noticed it, but some people on these threads have interesting information to share. Even Steve Goddard, who I disagree with often.

    Strangely enough, you can actually back that URL up to a directory (it’s not blocked) and find this helpful explanatory page:
    Why is that strange ? It’s a standard technique to explore a website that a cited image comes from, and what other interesting information might be there. Web 101.

    Now, the terrifying anomaly graph says the current rate of decline, which of course shall always remain steady, is 3.3 thousand cubic kilometers a decade. The helpful page says “Total Arctic Ice Volume for March 2010 is 20,300 km^3…” Crank the numbers, and 61 1/2 years from last March we’ll run out of sea ice.
    They also helpfully say “September Ice Volume was lowest in 2009 at 5,800 km^3″. Crank the numbers, and less than 18 years from 2009 we’ll have no more summer Arctic sea ice – that’s 2027.

    Did I mention summer 2009 had the lowest Arctic sea ice volume ? And that was when ICESat was still working. Good thing we have some wafer thin ice extent that built up in the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk this March – that ought to save this summer melt from another disappointing record minimum sea ice volume :-)

    You’re right, the anomaly trend doesn’t have to stay linear – it might accelerate in a few years – hence the phrase “death spiral”.
    Whether that is “terrifying” or not is just your personal reaction – the data is just the data.
    Oh, and it’s all “natural”. If that helps.

  166. Actually, we DO know that the Arctic was Ice-free for thousands of years

    (in Summer only, the 6-month Polar Night will always form sea-ice in winter) as waves were forming Beaches on the North Greenland Coast, then Stopped, about 5000 years ago:

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

    The Ewing-Donner Ice Age theory calculated weather Patterns for an Ice-Free Pole, & came up with Much more precipitation, a green Sahara, a dry Kansas — a PBS History Mystery highlighted the uninhabitable nature of Kansas & Nebraska up until 5000 BP and this confirms Donner’s Weather calculations: BUT the Pattern clearly is the POST-Ice Age Climate of the Hipsithermal.

    — I speculate that it is an OPEN POLAR SEA that causes the 3-to-5 degree C Global uptick that ENDS an Ice Age. Not Start one. But Ewing had calculated an Ice Sheet is only possible with INCREASED precipitation and had “heard” the Sahara was Green in the “past” … but DURING Ice Ages the Sahara is dry.

    But their Weather Forecast seems good IF the Arctic does Melt off.

    Part II:

    …. the Arctic is NOT about AGW vs. Natural Warming — Both total only 1/4.

    Arctic Warming is nostly “CAT”- Warming according to the team led by Drew Shindell early in 2009.

    CAT = CAP & TRADE:
    26% — General Global Average increase
    29% — Sulphur Dioxide Decrease from SO2’s CAP & TRADE
    45% — Soot leaving little black Sun-absorbing Dots on formerly-white Ice
    — = Diesel Soot (forgiven by Kyoto’s CAP & TRADE as it cuts CO2)
    + Asian Coal Soot (forgiven by CAP & TRADE as it is not Evil Western Soot)
    This is not REALLY “Environmentalists Killing the Earth” — it is a Lobby I call the PPG’s:

    Political Phony Greens = POISONS & PARTICULATES GROUP = PPG.

    Trying to get revenge on the industries exempted from the initial Pollution Controls, they have demonized CO2 & Sulphur and now FORCE us to put MERCURY in our homes, send Industires to Asia where all electricity will be Coal with NO scrubbers, etc.

    Look at where the leading AGW Scientists stand:

    Condemn CAP & TRADE :
    Hansen, Lovelock, Dr. Ozone — all 3 of the top 3 !

    … they call it a “SCAM” alleging a Crime — unlike Ethanol, which is counter-productive but we only found that out recently: a mistake, not a KNOWING CRIME.

    Advocate Emergency Sulfur cooling:
    Lovelock, Dr. Ozone (Paul Crutzen), the President’s own GW Advisor ( ! )

    (PS the PPG sites still quote Ken Caldiera as worrying about SO2, to counter Crutzen BUT like Crutzen, he has SWITCHED SIDES. As Dr. Ozone says: Mt. Pinutubo proved Safety AND efficacy (PS: Plus the latest designs cost only $20 million because they add ONLY the 1/500th of the Volcanic SO2 that was above 20 miles)– to which I’d add that CO2 growth after Pinutubo was a fifth the normal 2 ppm/year, because Plants prefer the diffuse light a little Sulfur high up gives. Hate CO2 ? — then for every TON of SO2 reduced, put 4 pounds, 20 miles high = cut CO2 growth 80%. Or why not 5 pounds & cut it all ???

    … Hansen — I do not know where he stands on SO2 — but as a bonus, he has stated the evidence favors those claiming “BC” warms more than CO2. BC = SOOT (dubbed “Evil BLACK CARBON” or “BC” by the career people at the EPA who really care).
    — Mind : Hansen STILL wants to stop CO2, in fact he condemns CAP & TRADE because Kyoto INCREASES CO2.
    In fairness to Obama, USA-made Diesels are made to cut soot by 93% , since the 1995 regs, so a U.S. CAT would not be as counterproductive as Kyoto has been.

    PSSS There is a great Report that analyzes SOOT in Ice & I feel their numbers explain the 1922 near ice-melt-off because the SOOT (BC) was so much MORE back before 1920, than now. 1900-1920 saw ENORMOUS soot deposits in the Arctic, until home heat first switched to smokeless Anthracite after WWI, then oil & gas. See: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/34/12140.figures-only

    Nothing Warms like changing Bright White reflective Ice, to Polka dots.
    Except changing to white Ice to “deep blue Sea”.

  167. From Anu (15:37:04):

    Why is that strange ? It’s a standard technique to explore a website that a cited image comes from, and what other interesting information might be there. Web 101.
    It’s a dated technique. Normally site admins will block such a directory listing to keep the curious from looking at “interesting information” those behind the site don’t want others to rummage through. This can be done by having something functional show up; try shortening the URL for this page. There can be a polite brush-off. This link is for the 2008 Weblog Awards Winner image seen above. Shortening the URL to try to get to the image directory yields a mild 404 error message from WordPress. Then there is the stern “Go Away!” This image is a Wikipedia symbol, shortening its URL gets you a 403 “Forbidden: Your client is not allowed to access the requested object.”

    These days, to allow that “standard technique” to work is normally a sign of shoddy server management. It’s allowable on a FTP server which is wide-open access to all, used by “old timers” comfortable with picking through the directories to find what they came to download. But for an HTTP server expecting the web-normal “click and look” traffic, allowing that bare-bones directory view shows a negligent attitude towards security, or just sheer incompetence.

    Thus it is strange how that old “standard technique” worked on that site, as that is not web-normal these days.

    You might not have noticed it, but some people on these threads have interesting information to share. Even Steve Goddard, who I disagree with often.
    Ah, but getting people to notice and process the information can still be a problem.

    Did I mention summer 2009 had the lowest Arctic sea ice volume ?
    Did you even notice my comment where the work of the esteemed Dr. Barber cast doubt on those ice volume numbers? Please try to keep up.

  168. Good News!

    As the Arctic Ice Death Spiral continues, we may finally be able to locate the Baychimo.

    Thus there is one more, albeit relatively minor, benefit of the Inevitable Global Warming.

    You may now resume your natural WUWT experience.

  169. Charles Wilson (17:33:22) :
    “…29% — Sulphur Dioxide Decrease from SO2′s CAP & TRADE
    45% — Soot leaving little black Sun-absorbing Dots on formerly-white Ice…”

    Excellent post Charles, just a shame it wasn’t nearer the top of the thread, but worth repeating next time Arctic ice comes up.

    I suspect that volcanoes and forest fires have had similar effects on the summer ice melt long before mankind came on the scene and was another significant cause of the chaotic Arctic sea ice cover oscillation.

    No surprise then that trends and models have no predictive value.

  170. kadaka (KD Knoebel) (10:51:20) :

    stevengoddard (08:52:51) :

    so now it is all about the volume (and I’m not referring to how loud the alarmists are screaming).

    If they had that Spinal Tap stereo they could go up to 11.

  171. Feuillet (15:06:45) :

    Galileo disproved Aristotle’s theory of mechanic without giving a new explanation of gravity as Newton did, but no one in his time, and now, ever doubt he ever disproved Aristotle’s theory.

    Einstein’s view of gravity made Newton’s look like something from the Geico caveman it is so beautiful and fascinating. But explanations are needed before it is understood. And what’s more, Newton’s gravity is still taught in schools as soon as kids reach the age where science is taught. It’s easier to just say bodies attract. It’s easier to be lazy.

    Funny thing is explanations only work with those who want to learn. It’s a waste to explain things to people who aren’t willing to learn.

  172. Feuillet (15:06:45) :

    Some are set against learning. They have other intentions. Trying to reason constructively with them is useless. Like Jesus said, “Don’t cast your pearls before swine lest they trample them under foot then turn and rend you to pieces”.

  173. Feuillet (15:06:45) :

    Refreshing to hear someone who understands logic. What you refer to in your post, that Anu and others are saying, was called in Aristotelian logic “argumentum ad ignorantium”, or “You cannot prove your counterargument, therefore mine must be correct”.

    But remember this always: the burden of proof is on the AGW alarmist side, since they want our behavior to change, not the other way around. With great power comes great responsibility.

    Nice work, Feuillet!

  174. Anu, volume is modeled/extrapolated from ice age based on satellite data related to ice movement out Fram Strait and ice locations from month to month, not based on actual measurements. The real observed Arctic basin volume measuring program ended last year.

    The land/sea edges are still being measured. The Bering Strait is now exhibiting thicker ice than it has in recent years. This is an area that is still subjected to objective actual measurements, not calculated assumptive algorithms.

  175. http://www.arcus.org/search/siwo

    22 April 2010 – Hajo Eicken – Information on Landfast Ice and Weather at Wales
    Grounded ridges and shorefast ice edge (Photo: M. Druckenmiller)During a field trip to Wales we found level shorefast ice slightly thicker than in past years (1.5m, 5 feet), with less snow (6 cm, 2.5 inches). Heavy ridging helped anchor ice (see photo, right); similar ridges are holding landfast ice in place further to the North (see last week’s satellite image). Rough ice required trailbuilding by hunters to access the ice edge. Boats from Wales are out hunting towards the North in a wide lead. Weather was windier (25 mph winds from N/NE sector) than indicated by forecast, with fresh snowfall limiting visibility on Wednesday.

  176. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    Scientists often use ice age data as a way to infer ice thickness—one of the most important factors influencing end-of-summer ice extent. Although the Arctic has much less thick, multiyear ice than it did during the 1980s and 1990s, this winter has seen some replenishment: the Arctic lost less ice the past two summers compared to 2007, and the strong negative Arctic Oscillation this winter prevented as much ice from moving out of the Arctic. The larger amount of multiyear ice could help more ice to survive the summer melt season. However, this replenishment consists primarily of younger, two- to three-year-old multiyear ice; the oldest, and thickest multiyear ice has continued to decline. Although thickness plays an important role in ice melt, summer ice conditions will also depend strongly on weather patterns through the melt season.

    At the moment there are no Arctic-wide satellite measurements of ice thickness, because of the end of the NASA Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) mission last October. NASA has mounted an airborne sensor campaign called IceBridge to fill this observational gap.

  177. But the glaciers are all melting. Don’t any of you understand the intricacies of the planet? Melting glaciers, increasing arctic ice, record cold 2009 midwest summer, early flowering in Wisconsin spring, record snow east coast. Come on-you know it’s GW and it’s all our fault. Just accept the science!

  178. Pamela,

    Let us assume that Hansen’s reconstructed and smoothed and polished and extrapolated surface temperature record is correct. That is, that the globe has warmed 1/2 of one degree since 1973, and that warming since 1890 is (about) 9/10 of one degree.

    So, how much Arctic ice “should have been” (could have been ?) melted by this change in surface temperature, and when did this increase in temperature occur?

    (That is: If the change in temperature was in spring, fall, or winter, there would have been no melting. If in summer, his surface temperature that was to “increase ice melt” most emphatically did NOT occur – since we have daily Arctic temperature records for 80 deg Latitude showing “no change” at all.)

    (A second AGW claim is proven false already: We know absolutely that the much proclaimed “Arctic death spiral” of ever decreasing ice causing more absorption causing higher temperatures causing more ice melt is false: 2006 – 2007 showed a high ice loss, but ice extent recovered promptly from 2007-2008-2009-2010 (so far).)

  179. Mudman Wis (05:43:17) :
    But the glaciers are all melting. Don’t any of you understand the intricacies of the planet? Melting glaciers, increasing arctic ice, record cold 2009 midwest summer, early flowering in Wisconsin spring, record snow east coast. Come on-you know it’s GW and it’s all our fault. Just accept the science!
    —–
    REPLY:

    Hah! Hey, if you want to read some serious, thought-provoking warmista stuff, check this site out:

    http://www.campaigncc.org/

    I found out about it via Delingpole. Talk about loons!! Even if we ARE in a “climate emergency,” like, what are we supposed to do about it?

    These folks are scary, and clearly, we are the enemies!!

  180. On the contrary, in March 2010, the total Arctic sea ice volume was 20,300 km3 – the lowest March value for total sea ice volume over the 1979-2009 period. Those who claim Arctic sea ice has returned to normal are focussing at the thin shell at the top and neglecting the steadily thinning sea ice below.

  181. SteveE (03:54:15),

    May I? Thank you:

    Those who claim Arctic sea ice has returned to normal are focussing (sic) at the thin shell at the top and neglecting the steadily thinning increasing Antarctic sea ice below.

    click

  182. This post is about Artic Sea ice, and my point was that while the extent might have increase the volume, ie the amount has decreased.

  183. The hypothesis is that increases in human emitted CO2 will cause runaway global warming. The implication is that the Arctic is showing this happening.

    But it is not happening. The Arctic is simply going through a regional – not global – fluctuation, which has happened many times before, and which is completely normal and natural.

    Human CO2 emissions, and CO2 in general, have little or nothing to do with what is happening in the Arctic.

    If CO2 was causing global warming, the Antarctic would be affected too: click

    The planet, unlike the alarmist crowd, doesn’t lie. And the planet is telling us that CO2 doesn’t matter.

  184. I think you’re still missing the point with the sea ice extent graph.

    It’s not the extent you should be measuring, it’s the volume. Your graph showing that the Sea Ice extent has increased more in the antarctic is as meaningless as the one showing the sea ice extent has increased in the Arctic.

    I made no mention of CO2 emissions or AGW, so I see no reason why you raise them. I was simply pointing out that the Artic Sea Ice isn’t the highest in 8 years so and that the title of this post [snip].

  185. SteveE (07:52:58),

    The entire basis of the global warming debate is whether an increase in human emitted CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. If you agree that changes in Arctic ice extent are natural, recurring regional climate fluctuations, then we have no disagreement.

    Also, ice volume has nothing to do with albedo. Albedo is a function of ice extent, not thickness. Disregarding the effect of changes in albedo ignores a major climate forcing.

  186. Smokey (08:07:39) :

    My point is that there is no evidence to support the claim that sea ice is back at the level was 8 years ago as the title of this post suggests.

    I make no claim that this supports or disproves AGW. Just stating the facts.

    As you said the planet doesn’t lie.

  187. Smokey, what’s going on here?

    Both R Gates and Anu came by with that graph and preached how the volume is what matters, that got hashed out, then the thread’s practically dead, and now this SteveE fellow comes by flogging the same graph and acting like he’s bringing up some brand new point that was never considered before!

    Is there some plot afoot where the “other side” will keep bringing up old stuff like it deserves fresh new debate until skeptics give up in frustration and let it stand?

  188. Late and maybe a bit OT, but…

    Someone I used to know well, Amelia Russell, reached the North Pole, unsupported, yesterday.

    http://northpolechallenge.co.uk/

    She is, apparently, only the third woman ever to achieve this.

    Catlin, eat your hearts out.

    Cheers,
    Neil

  189. SteveE

    What evidence then – if not this week’s sea average extent – WOULD you accept as showing conclusively that the admitted (NON-AGW influenced, wind-blown) ice loss in 2007 has been fully recovered from in summer 2008 AND more in the summer of 2009?

    If NOT this week’s sea ice extent, what WOULD you accept to show that the artificial “average extent” based on 1970-era levels has been equaled?

    (The planet does not lie. But we see routinely that politically-driven AGW advocates DO lie, exaggerate, and propagandize every (false and misleading) press release. And most AGW advocates and fellow travelers further write and promulgate/propagandize the biased “research” that passes through further biases in their prized so-called peer reviews.)

  190. SteveE:

    Many thousand arguments justify the world’s capitalist societies based on the claim that “AGW must be true because the Arctic Ice has been melting. ( Your several statements above expand this by claiming that increasing sea ice extent does not matter, only sea ice volume matters… )

    Therefore, the AGW claims are : Catastrophic Global Warming is real because the temperature is increasing, and we can prove temperature is increasing because the Arctic Ice is melting. (Your argument: “.. because Arctic Ice is volume is decreasing …” must be made because sea ice extent is increasing back towards normal; though your argument still accepts the assumption that increasing temperature causes the original sea ice melt.)

    We have measurements – shown every day in WUWT for 80 deg north – that Arctic temperatures have NOT increased since the 1950’s. Summer Arctic temperatures have remained constant despite 60 years of increasing CO2 levels.

    So, how much Arctic ice “should have been” (could have been ?) melted by the claimed GISS change in global surface temperature of 1/2 of one degree, and when did this increase in temperature occur during the Arctic year?

    (That is: If the change in temperature was in spring, fall, or winter, there would have been no melting. If in summer, his surface temperature that was to “increase ice melt” most emphatically did NOT occur – since we have daily Arctic temperature records for 80 deg Latitude showing “no change” at all.)

    Therefore, you must show that a 1/2 of one degree change in global temperature IN WINTER caused the change in volume claimed in your graph.

    According to AGW theory, there can be no other reason for the supposed change in ice volume other than an increase in temperature. According to AGW advocates, the loss of ice volume proves the change in temperature, so therefore you (the AGW extremists) must be able to calculate ice loss based on below freezing winter temperatures.

  191. Dr. Roy Spencer will be interviewed tonight (Mon.) on Coast-to-Coast from 10pm to 2am Pacific time.

  192. RACookPE1978 (11:33:19) :

    I would accept evidence supporting that the volume of ice is the same instead of mearly the extent. Otherwise it just comes across as a politically-driven exaggerated and propagandized press release.

    RACookPE1978 (11:47:24) :

    I agree with you that the decrease in ice volume is most likely do to an increase in temperature, however does these measurements that shows Artic temperatures have not increased take measure the air temperature or the sea temperature? As the ice is floating in the ocean I would have thought this would have the largest effect on the volume of sea ice. Just a thought.

    With reagrds to it being 1/2 a degree warmer during the winter I would have thought that this would mean that less ice would freeze in the same time period. How much I’m afraid I don’t know, however there is a nice graph showing the decrease in ice volume so perhaps a relationship can be derived off of that.

    I would hardly call myself an AGW extremist for pointing out that the data supporting this thread is exaggerated to prove a point.

    I have repeated said that that I make no claim that this supports or disproves AGW. All I suggests is that this data supports the hypothesis that temperatures are increasing.

  193. hiya
    I checked with this chart ( ice area )

    And it seems very likely that the 2010 April ice did set a 9 year ( not just 8 ) record after all.
    So you might want to put the record back to 9 years.
    Where the heck is the easy download ice-area or extent data for the last 30 years? Only jaxa make AMSR-E’s 8.5 years worth of data easy to get.

Comments are closed.