WUWT Arctic Sea Ice News #7

By Steve Goddard

The last piece of ice remaining in the Arctic

The death spiral continues, with Arctic ice extent and thickness nearly identical to what it was 10 years ago.

The graph above shows superimposed volume data (calculated from PIPS) for 2010, on top of the NSIDC extent data. Interesting to note that volume continued to increase for about a month after extent started to decline. This is because the Arctic Basin has remained below freezing, while the lower latitudes have been melting.

In the video of 2010 ice below, you can see how ice has been piling up to a depth of nearly five metres (red) on the windward side of Wrangel Island, the New Siberian Islands, and the Taymyr Peninsula.

Ice thickness in Barrow, AK seems to have reached it’s maximum this week, at about 4.3 metres feet.

University of Alaska – Barrow Ice Sensor

Temperatures in the Arctic interior have remained cold, and well below freezing. Not much opportunity for melt.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

You can see the Arctic temperature anomalies over the last 30 days in the video below:

The four major extent indices continue to diverge, with the next couple of weeks showing almost no year over year variability.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_2010.png

The modified NSIDC image below shows in red where ice has disappeared since early April.

The modified NSIDC image below shows in red where ice has disappeared in the last week.

The modified NSIDC image below shows a comparison between 2010 and 2007. Areas in green have more ice than 2007. Areas in red have less ice than 2007.

The modified NSIDC image below shows in red areas of ice deficiency relative to the 30 year mean, with areas of excess shown in green. The cold Pacific side has excess ice, while the warmer Atlantic side has a deficiency..

This corresponds quite closely with sea surface temperature anomalies seen below.

http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html

The image below from September 15, 2007 is the one which most interests me this week. After the big “melt” of 2007, it was widely reported that researchers expected the ice to be gone by 2013, and that “in the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly.”

How is five metre thick ice supposed to “just melt away quite suddenly?”

————————————————————————————-

From the linear predictions department :

Temperatures in Colorado have warmed up 20 degrees in the last two weeks. If that trend continues, it will become hot enough to boil water before Christmas. And the Arctic will be ice free by 2013.

Sources:

http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_sealevel/brw2010/BRW_MBS10_overview_complete.png

http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_sealevel/brw2010/BRW_MBS10_overview_complete.png

And finally, GLOBAL sea ice has returned to normal:

Click to enlarge

About these ads

124 thoughts on “WUWT Arctic Sea Ice News #7

  1. And the advert above is for an edition of the Ice Road Truckers on the History chanel.

    The edges can diminish as a result of wind and water currents. If it is getting warmer, how can the ice become thicker?

  2. MODERATOR:

    Please make two changes. Title should be :
    WUWT Arctic Sea Ice News #7
    it is missing an S

    and the last word in this sentence should be “feet” rather than “metres”
    “Ice thickness in Barrow, AK seems to have reached it’s maximum this week, at about 4.3 metres.”

  3. Antarctic Sea Ice seems to not have gotten the memo on Earth’s rapidly alarming warming trend:

  4. Ice thickness in Barrow, AK seems to have reached it’s maximum this week, at about 4.3 metres.

    The graph seems to show 4.3 feet, not meters, on the right scale. The left scale, in meters, shows about 1.3.

    REPLY: fixed thanks – A

  5. Its not nice to mock the afflicted….

    Judging from the coastline floods that are being experienced world-wide (aren’t they?) the continuing melt is wreaking havoc with civilization.

    Perhaps some kindly physicist will calculate the time it would take for all the sea-ice to melt if the temperature within the arctic circle made it to 25C and stayed there indefinitely. Might be an interesting exercise….

  6. Anthony…. Ice news , of a different nature, from the other end of the globe.

    The camp here, 600 miles from the South Pole, is called WAIS Divide, named for its place atop a regional divide of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. In January, 45 scientists, technicians and support staffers labored here at a cost of about $3 million for the season. They worked around the clock, inside an icehouse, probing a plateau of ice so thick that the continent sags beneath its weight.

    The first samples already reveal intriguing evidence of climate complexity. In ice layers attributed to the Middle Ages, when Europe was unusually warm, the team found surprisingly high levels of carbon black particles, or soot. Levels were found to be twice as high as during the more heavily populated and industrialized 20th century, says geochemist Ross Edwards at the Desert Research Institute in Reno, Nev.

    Overlooked in climate projections until recently, carbon black is a powerful warming agent. The soot, scientists speculate, came from giant wildfires that likely occurred in Australia and South America. So much soot could have raised temperatures.

    Preliminary tests also showed that soot levels dropped during the cooler centuries after the Middle Ages, a period known as the Little Ice Age.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704655004575114010457906340.html?mod=wsj_india_main

  7. Man-made global warming is melting in a sea of facts & evidence proving AGW is a hoax.

    Arctic sea ice extent is exhibit # 1

  8. From the looks of the Cyrosphere Today Global Sea Ice Area Mean and this one:

    the overlay of the Southern & Northern Sea Ice Anomalies…
    The current trend is for the two to converge once again… at zero anomaly in the year 2023.
    By 2036, they will be freaking out over the loss of the Antarctic Sea Ice leading up to the melting of Antarctica.
    I’m roughly estimating a period of 26 years for the cycle to repeat itself, from existing data.

  9. This is all brilliant stuff.

    The big problem being that WE can see the nonsense propagated about polar ice by those who, for their own reasons, dishonestly tell only half the true story.

    Of greater importance, however, is how this message may be forcefully propagated to government, and the mainstream media so that Joe Public gets the truth of the full picture, in a way that he can make an informed decision as to what to believe.

    I, personally, am truly gutted that the powers that be push on with their ideology regardless, and the press (who should by now be taking more than a passing interest) are allowing the facts to go washing over their heads without latching on to the scam built around this chicanery. Surely there is a duty somewhere, to make this stuff headline news?

  10. Here’s a theory. All the soot from Asia deposited in the Arctic caused more melting. The reduced albedo caused the Arctic to warm. The warmer Arctic reduced the flow of heat from the tropics. The net … a slight warming of the globe.

    Therefore, I claim AGW is entirely China and other overly polluting countries fault and expect to be paid millions for my suffering. Where do I pick up my check?

    And as for those who question my theory, you are clearly just deniers as the science is now settled because I said it was. QED.

  11. I don’t see anything unusual going on in any graph or map. Everything is within normal ranges.

  12. I am not sure why Anthony and Steve are labouring this.

    It is a wait until September job.

    I know the ice is poster child for the thermogedon loons along with the growing polar bear population and baby penguins, ( seal and killer whale food as I call them ), unless you are trying to bait the whole raft of the thermogedonists out of the woodwork, why bother?

    If the intention is to bait them then, “as you were”, their knickers are knotted up and then some.

  13. Given the little error of using metres instead of feet it is obviously time for America to ditch the imperial – feet, Farenheit and month/day/year etc and go with the rest of the world in metric – metres, celsius and day/month/year (a logical sequence).
    Sorry could not resist a little dig.

  14. The focus on arctic ice is a debate mistake of the first order. Since it’s a secondary line of evidence for AGW, there is nothing much to be gained in questioning it and being right, and everything to lose in questioning it and being wrong.

  15. Peter Foster says:
    May 31, 2010 at 10:34 am
    Given the little error of using metres instead of feet it is obviously time for America to ditch the imperial – feet, Farenheit and month/day/year etc and go with the rest of the world in metric – metres, celsius and day/month/year (a logical sequence).
    Sorry could not resist a little dig.

    Don’t you know that the internationalizing of the metric system, followed by the ISO (International Standards Organization) it is part of the Global Governance Agenda?
    BTW, the english system it is not abstract but natural?. Can you imagine a circle of 400 degrees? That is the international circle, it does not correspond with observable reality. It was invented by the French Revolution in its effort to de-sacralize reality, it was part of a wider secularizing project, to deny human ethics and moral principles. The STATE should replace GOD.

  16. Question (OT) : Perhaps I’ve been misreading the colors on the anomoly chart , but the sea surface temps off the Southeastern coast don’t appear to be unusually warm , but I have heard repeatedly on the Weather Channel that these waters are experiencing record warmth . Can anyone tell me what gives ?

  17. I appreciate these weekly postings, but I hate how you put the most positive face possible on the data, in direct contradiction to the AGW-ers, but with no less of a bias.

    In April it was all, woohoo, we’re almost to their definition of normal, we’re better than 2002-2009, but in May it wasn’t, okay we dropped below all of 2002-2009 and are well below their definition of normal BUT it’s still fine because of this, this, and this… in May it was just, hey we’re still doing great because of this, this, and this.

    There’s a lot of data to cherry-pick around; don’t cite certain comparisons when they support us if you’re not going to cite them when they don’t. The truth can speak for itself either way.

  18. Richard M says:
    May 31, 2010 at 9:51 am

    Excellent! I think the gov’t will pony up a few million for you to add one more variable to your model, CO2, since CO2 causing everything, you stand to make millions! Can i jump on your team? oh, you forgot rotten ice too…

  19. Peter Foster,

    You forgot metric time – a year of 100 days, with 100 hours in each day. Of course, the start and end of each day would rarely coincide with the rising and setting of the sun, but not much in metric corresponds to anything in nature anyway, so why not.

  20. Steven mosher says:
    May 31, 2010 at 10:49 am

    The focus on arctic ice is a debate mistake…

    I’m not really sure what this debate is supposed to be. The average person doesn’t know about albedo, non-warming in the troposphere, the Hockey Stick, normal variation, etc . They’ve heard about rising sea levels, melting ice, polar bears dying, disappearing glaciers, extinctions, disease, etc. So for them if those things aren’t happening then global warming isn’t happening.

    If predictions coming from global warming scientists are failing then global warming is failing. The science will always be over most peoples heads and will just be blah, blah, blah.

  21. Although air temperature in the Arctic basin is below freezing, the Sun’s radiation heats and melts ice. It’s up 24/7 you know, except when cloudy.

  22. I’d like to see comparisons with the record high-ice conditions as well as the average or 2000-era ice conditions. Where, exactly, was the ‘extra ice’ in the record high years? And it highlights the relative size of the loss compared to the extant ice.

  23. joshuahedlund says:
    May 31, 2010 at 11:26 am

    It is all just fine because of this, this and this. Why? Because nobody ever proved it wasn’t.

    It’s called the Null Hypothesis.

    If your assertion that this site or topic is biased were true, we would be blasting that everything is all messed up and headed towards Global Freezing. And that is equally unproven. AGW is going the same route as The Coming Ice Age, which wasn’t.

    Null & Void.

  24. Steven mosher says:
    May 31, 2010 at 10:49 am

    The focus on arctic ice is a debate mistake of the first order. Since it’s a secondary line of evidence for AGW, there is nothing much to be gained in questioning it and being right, and everything to lose in questioning it and being wrong.

    The advantage with focusing on sea ice is that the data is excellent. The alarmist predictions about sea ice will be subjected to accurate, unassailable fact. The failure of Al Gore’s prediction of no sea ice in 2013 will be undeniable.

  25. Soot. In the MWP. Could the wildfires that produced the soot come from drought? As in … 1930′s style dustbowl drought or worse?

  26. Well, There’s one thing that was forgotten in the calculation for the temperature projection for Colorado. We’re at altitude so water boils at about 206 not 212, so it would be Christmas Eve not Christmas Day. LOL! Getting back to the point of the article, the variances I saw were within the error limits for the data. Which by definition variances are.

  27. One minor problem with the sea ice graphs; they show mid-may sea ice in the mouth of the St. Lawrence river!

    I sailed down that a few weeks ago, and there was no ice there. Not one bit.

    My guess: a glitch of some kind. I don’t think it’s statistically relevant, but I hope it’s looked into. Otherwise, the warmists will surely use it as “proof” that out data is off.

  28. Steven mosher: May 31, 2010 at 10:49 am
    The focus on arctic ice is a debate mistake of the first order. Since it’s a secondary line of evidence for AGW, there is nothing much to be gained in questioning it and being right, and everything to lose in questioning it and being wrong.

    There is truth in your contention, but I would submit that it only applies to those who take an actively objective look at these matters, and who spend time trying to understand the issues. One of the reasons so many people believe in CAGW is precisely that they have been inundated with a non-stop barrage of ‘cherry picks’. People in general don’t read much beyond the headlines (if they read at all), and as you know, erroneous attributions are rarely retracted, and seldom with as much fanfare as their promulgation. Cherry-picked truth, in sufficient quantity and variety, will have, and already is having, a salutary counter-effect.

    Not one person in (some large number) really has a clue about the details of ClimateGate, and they don’t really want to put much effort into finding out. They just know that a bunch of people were caught cheating, and that a lot of other people have been making a big deal about it, and lots of enquiries have been initiated, and so on. The result, in only six months, has been a remarkable decrease in belief in the warmologists’ dogma. Not nearly as many people are scared witless any more.

    I have my own mailing list of about 400 people (friends, colleagues, and acquaintances) to whom I regularly distribute selected ‘cherry picks’. I make them short, topical, and punchy, and often in the form of images and short videos that require little effort to assimilate. But I never lie. They are always factual, and they are having an effect. Many of the more devoted ‘believers’ undoubtedly just delete the messages, but they still see the titles, or click on the attached images, and after enough time they can’t help but feel that things might not really be ‘as advertised’. All of them know that I believe that the CO2 and CAGW issues are utter bull[snip], but they also know, for other reasons, that I am not a raving idiot, and thus it has an effect, if for no other reason than that they are reminded.

    /dr.bill

  29. “The advantage with focusing on sea ice is that the data is excellent. The alarmist predictions about sea ice will be subjected to accurate, unassailable fact. The failure of Al Gore’s prediction of no sea ice in 2013 will be undeniable.”

    on the contrary. The comeback would simply be that:

    1. Gore is no scientist
    2. Science makes flawed predictions all the time.
    3. They will point to other predictions that were no as Dire.
    4. They will argue that the trend is still down and that the tipping point is just around the corner.
    5. The fact that the ice doesnt disappear doesnt directly contradict the theory of global warming.
    6. That the ice retreat slowed because of some other reason.

    Blah blah blah.

    But if it proves correct, or even if the decline continues and 2007 is matched or exceeded, then you will probably regret the fact that you made it such a big issue.

    Its far better to focus on the uncertainties of the causation RATHER THAN the actual figures. cause you know, the ice could just disappear for other reasons, soot, winds, and SST patterns. Then, you’d be in a tougher position in the debate.. having made such an ICON out of the issue. basically, the CAGW types made the ice into an ICON. I judge accepting that ICON as the field of engagement to be a risky strategy.
    never let your opponent select the battle field. That’s just some friendly advice. Heck I told them to stop using the polar bear as an ICON. Looks like they are listening to that advice now.

  30. BiilyBob says:
    May 31, 2010 at 12:40 pm
    Soot. In the MWP. Could the wildfires that produced the soot come from drought? As in … 1930′s style dustbowl drought or worse?

    Note that Lee Kington says:
    May 31, 2010 at 9:43 am

    “The soot, scientists speculate, came from giant wildfires that likely occurred in Australia and South America.”

    Just at first glance… if that was the case, these giant wildlifes were probably caused by aboriginal burning, as usual, but perhaps with drier conditions making them more widespread once lit. But I must emphasize that I do not know if it was drier in South America during the MWP… or if conditions then would have increased those human pops.

    But I do know that fire was the primary land management tool of those people, and prior to European contact the Amazon – like the rest of South America – was home to many people. The use of fire in Australia is well documented, and the true state of the Pre-contact Amazon is just being uncovered.

    The reason wildfires are now so severe in Australia, and California, is that with aboriginal people/burning regimes removed too much fuel now builds up.

    Lots of info on this topic here: http://westinstenv.org/news/

  31. rbateman says:
    May 31, 2010 at 11:09 am

    How much warming can soot cause when it’s buried under another meter of fresh ice?

    Loads. This is carbon you know: It can warm things hotter than itself, it has an emissivity of greater than one – it is in fact the most powerful thing in the universe. Sucking the heat out of sunshine while buried under snow is a mere trifling thing.

    We’re doomed in the face of that much power. Only taxes and vegetarianism can save us now.

  32. BiilyBob says:
    May 31, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    Soot. In the MWP. Could the wildfires that produced the soot come from drought? As in … 1930′s style dustbowl drought or worse?

    Fires tend not to happen when it’s raining, so I’d say that’s pretty much the chief suspect. However it does depend on the distribution of the soot. A fire pretty much consumes everything flammable on the first go, and a *prolonged* drought would stop fuel from growing back.

  33. Fiery Hun in CO says:
    May 31, 2010 at 12:42 pm

    Some one gets it. When we are talking about means, we must be talking standard deviations, so we can get an idea for what “normal” is. “Normal” means within 2 standard deviations of the mean, where 95% of points fall. Normal does not mean right on the mean line. Staying right on the mean line would be abnormal, actually.

    BTW, I have stated in other threads that the govt. agencies and QUANGOs (Quasi Non-Governmental Organizations) do not use a true standard deviation. At each time point, each mean point should have a sd that reflects that time point based on the totality of measurements at that point. I see that the warm-earthers usually use a number that reflects the sd of all points taken together, a fixed sd. Error bars, in order to reflect trends, must be based on individual points on the x-axis. They should be represented by large and small bars depending on the variance at each time. May, when ice varies more than in December, as an example, should have a much larger error bar than does December, reflecting the larger swings year-on-year for May.

    Also, some scientists erroneously use standard error. This is a cop-out which deflates the error! SE is the SD divided by the square root of the number of measurements, so it is much smaller than sd when significant measurements are made.

  34. Enneagram – Thanks , but I was referring to the southeast coast of the US . ( It was an OT question ). I was jusy wondering if anyone could explain why the Weather Channel keeps claiming that the ssts in that area are at record highs when , according to the anomaly maps , nothing is out of the ordinary .

  35. dr.bill says:
    May 31, 2010 at 12:55 pm

    There is truth in your contention, but I would submit that it only applies to those who take an actively objective look at these matters, and who spend time trying to understand the issues. One of the reasons so many people believe in CAGW is precisely that they have been inundated with a non-stop barrage of ‘cherry picks’. People in general don’t read much beyond the headlines (if they read at all), and as you know, erroneous attributions are rarely retracted, and seldom with as much fanfare as their promulgation. Cherry-picked truth, in sufficient quantity and variety, will have, and already is having, a salutary counter-effect.

    I would say only a fraction of people want to know the science, and the rest are either just emotionally manipulated into the “polar bears are cute” mindset, or view it as a “belonging” – something they can do to get approval without having to think too much. A bit like wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt.

    Take a look at this http://comixed.com/2010/01/04/the-science-is-settled/ The comments are interesting in places.

  36. Icarus says:
    May 31, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    Yes, I do expect the highest probability will be for the current Arctic temp leveling off to turn into a decline.
    It was, after all, an El Nino year, so the warming was not unexpected nor was it unusual for an El Nino. So, when the El Nino heat is exhausted, the opposite or neutral conditions sets in, with alarming regularity.

    Do you expect the current Antarctic Sea Ice Anomaly growth to continue unabated to the tip of S. America, cutting off the flow of water & commerce between Pacific and Atlantic Oceans? And if the PDO, AMO and AO are cyclic oscillations, why would anyone suppose that Arctic/Antarctic Sea Ice Extents/Areas are also not cyclic oscillations?
    They have been in harmonious Ying-Yang balance since 1979.
    I defer to Rod Serling’s Twilght Zone episode, where the Earth, upon reaching apogee, kept on hurtling further into space, growing dim and cold. The nightmare was the Earth reaching perigee and getting closer to the Sun, with killer heat waves. Mrs. Bronson was attending to the young lady, who was suffering from severe cold-induced fever. The former was the reality, the latter was the fevered imagination seeking respite.

  37. Vincent says:
    May 31, 2010 at 11:37 am

    ‘… but not much in metric corresponds to anything in nature anyway, so why not.’

    A metre is about 1/10,000,000th of the distance from the equator to the pole and a newton is about the weight of an apple!

  38. [snip]

    Permanent arctic sea ice is melting. The remaining ice is thinner and moving more freely sooner in the season. If you have a pond three quarters covered with ice, you have 75% ice extent. If you break that ice into tiny fragments spread over the entire pond, you have 100% extent of ice cover. The degree of that cover, fairly obviously, is still 75%. The area of actual ice is still 75% of the pond area. Extent and area are not the same thing.

    The fact that the arctic has broken up sooner than normal is not good.

    It’s not a hard thing to grasp. The arctic will be essentially ice free during the summer. Not sure if it when it will happen, but the trend is clear enough for all to consider.

    How should we define an ice free arctic:

    Less than 100,000 km^2 ice in the entire basin?
    Open water (>7,000,000 km^2) with less than 5% ice?
    No multi-year ice?

    Will iceburgs count?

  39. Icarus says:
    Given that Arctic temperature continues to rise (quite substantially in recent decades)

    - as it did around 70 years ago. The recent warming is probably not any more exceptional than the previous Arctic warming period.

    and that this rise can only reasonably be attributed to anthropogenic influences,

    Or not. See e.g. this, posted by Roy Spencer today: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/05/misinterpreting-natural-climate-change-as-manmade/


    can anyone honestly expect the current long-term decline of Arctic sea ice to slow down, stop or reverse?

    Please. You must have understood by now that the graph you’re pointing to shows the output of a model that has not been verified since 2007.

  40. “How is five metre thick ice supposed to “just melt away quite suddenly?”

    Well, looking at the 2010 situation you might notice that the 5-meter zones close to Greenland and North Canada (theonly ones surviving by the end of September) almost vanished. We’ll talk this over in 5 years or so.

    What is the official WUWT prediction for this Sep minimum? 500k more than 2009?

  41. Lee Kington says:
    May 31, 2010 at 9:43 am
    Lee offers the following quote concerning the Antarctic ice record:
    “Overlooked in climate projections until recently, carbon black is a powerful warming agent. The soot, scientists speculate, came from giant wildfires that likely occurred in Australia and South America. So much soot could have raised temperatures.”

    This begs a question: Does soot cause warming or does warming cause more soot? If warming causes increased botanical/biosphere growth, this would provide more source material for soot. These darned feedback loops are so annoying! Is it a causative agent or merely an indicator material?

  42. rbateman says:
    May 31, 2010 at 11:09 am

    How much warming can soot cause when it’s buried under another meter of fresh ice?

    Minimal precipitation at the WAIS Divide. Annual layers in the ice at about 1 cm thick. How many years to build up that meter of ‘fresh’ ice? How much soot deposited yearly?

    I would say that a significant amount of warming could occur for a prolonged period of time. But then… that is just a guess.

  43. Seems by that map even the Atlantic as a whole has cooled compared to the last few months. What’s up with that? Think the excess heat from the 80′s, 90′s and early 00′s is finally running bit low?

  44. Peter Foster says:
    May 31, 2010 at 10:34 am

    Given the little error of using metres instead of feet it is obviously time for America to ditch the imperial – feet, Farenheit and month/day/year etc and go with the rest of the world in metric – metres, celsius and day/month/year (a logical sequence).
    Sorry could not resist a little dig.

    Ah, but metric is so nineteenth century. We’re in the digital age, now. Imperial volume measures were based on halves and doubling—in other words, computer friendly powers of two.

    2⁰            1oz       ounce
    2¹            2         ?
    2²            4         gill
    2³            8         cup
    2⁴           16         pint
    2⁵           32         quart
    2⁶           64         bote (bottle)
    2⁷          128         gallon
    2⁸          256         firkin
    2⁹          512         ? (quarter-keg, 4gal, 3⅞gal contents)
    2¹⁰        1024         ? (half-keg or pony, 8gal, 7¾gal contents)
    2¹¹        2048        keg (16gal, 15½gal contents)      
    2¹²        4048        barrel (32gal, 31gal contents)
    2¹²+2¹¹    6144        hogshead (48gal, 1bbl plus 1keg)
    2¹⁴       16384        pipe or butt (128gal)
    2¹⁵       32768        tun/ton (256gal, 2048lbs water-weight)  

    The same halving and doubling exists for dry measures, e.g. bushels pecks, and quarts.

    I didn’t remember all the name values, but what I did should look familiar. :)

    cheers,

    gary

  45. What exactly is that polar bear doing to that last piece of ice?

    And why does that ice look like Al Gore’s head?

  46. rbateman says:
    May 31, 2010 at 11:09 am

    How much warming can soot cause when it’s buried under another meter of fresh ice?
    – –

    You are touching something that has been in the back of my mind for quite a while. The answer is not much if any at all. And if the next year is similar with more snow, not much again.

    But when a warmer period comes along the top layers melt which concentrates the soot at lower levels. Many years of this would cause all the multi-year soot to now be concentrated at the bottom thin layer. Presto, complete melt.

    In other words, is that mechanism partially at fault in the 2007 melt? Was it temperature driven at all?

  47. Richard G writes,
    “This begs a question: Does soot cause warming or does warming cause more soot? If warming causes increased botanical/biosphere growth, this would provide more source material for soot. These darned feedback loops are so annoying! Is it a causative agent or merely an indicator material?”

    June issue of National Geographic has a nice, typically well illustrated cover story about Greenland. The most dramatic photos show recent melting on the surface of the ice sheet east of Illulissat. There we see another of those positive feedbacks in action, as warming temperatures cause more melting that leaves more of the ice surface covered with a black residue from particles formerly dispersed through many layers of ice, but now concentrating at the surface where they soak up more heat and speed melting further….

    http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/06/table-of-contents

  48. I forgot to blame CO2 for more soot: Increased aerial CO2 results directly in increased biomass production in plants leading to more biofuels leading to more soot leading to more warming leading to…AURGH… ANOTHER FEEDBACK LOOP…I wish you guys could keep all these independent variables corralled. One at a time here. Dependent, independent. Egg, meet Mrs. Chicken. Chicken, meet Mr. Egg.

  49. It’s always amazing how polar bears can make a diving board out of most anything!

    I remember watching some polar bears at the zoo, really playful, they would climb up this stack of bolders to get a great high enterance into the pool below, splash a huge amount of water out as they dived in. Looks like the one pictured above has found a good one. Look closely, that bear is thanking Al and WWF for his new playset!

  50. Steve Goddard says:
    May 31, 2010 at 2:57 pm
    Sea ice forms from the bottom. Fresh ice won’t cover dirty old ice.
    – –
    But snow will! It does snow in the Arctic doesn’t it? :)

  51. wayne says:
    May 31, 2010 at 2:39 pm

    In other words, is that mechanism partially at fault in the 2007 melt? Was it temperature driven at all?

    According to the DMI temp >80N graph for 2007, no.
    I’m not even sure that the angle of insolation at those latitudes is sufficient to make a difference.
    The wind explanation still wins, and NASA’s wind model results for Mars Arctic Cap looks like a winner too.

  52. Gneiss says:
    May 31, 2010 at 2:46 pm

    If that was the case, the 1st forest fire that came along in an Ice Age would doom it to an early end.
    Not going to get 80,000 yrs of Ice Age out of 100,000 .

  53. Gneiss says:
    May 31, 2010 at 2:46 pm
    There is no question soot on snow increases sublimation/melting/wasting/consolidation. I typically sprinkle wood ash from my stove on my snowbound garden and walkways. I can coax the snow to melt and the soil temperature up to planting temps 30 or more days ahead of untreated areas by doing so. But it is NOT increasing air temperatures past the boundary layer until the snow is gone, and then only on the microclimate level.
    The common fallacy in the climate debate is that global temperature averages equate to climate. I maintain that all climate is local, not global, and is described by biome (i.e. Mediterranean, Alpine, Taiga, Sonoran, …) not temperature. Deserts are defined by moisture, not temperature. Rain forests are defined by… (rimshot) Rainfall… not temperature. Temperature is a component but does not wag the dog. Available water in all it’s phases is the 800 lb (400 kg) gorilla in the climate debate. May I introduce you to King Kong?

  54. Many question why this weekly update exists.

    I would say that the MSM supplies a pretty constant message that the ‘ice is melting’, and these threads go some way to providing a constant message that everything is pretty much within normal variability.

    You don’t see that constant message anywhere else (I may be wrong, sorry), so it is therefore valuable.

    Have you never noticed that in just about *every* ‘debate’ on TV between warmist and a skeptic there is a constant background montage of mainly calving icebergs and melting ice (ie what happens every year). Do we not have some obligation to counter that erroneous message in some way?

  55. rbateman says:
    May 31, 2010 at 3:40 pm
    According to the DMI temp >80N graph for 2007, no.
    I’m not even sure that the angle of insolation at those latitudes is sufficient to make a difference.
    The wind explanation still wins, and NASA’s wind model results for Mars Arctic Cap looks like a winner too.

    The winds, ah the winds, I would agree they have at least a magnitudes larger effect.
    Good point. I just keep that “soot” effect in my mind having watched what a very thin sprinkling of fireplace ash does to my driveway in the winter. I never shovel. And if that layering up and down over the decades is there, I can see how that would, at some time, after years of accumulation, cause a total melt to flush the soot back to the sea, starting a new decadal cycle. That was my comment, a smaller seconary effect.

  56. rbateman writes,
    “If that was the case, the 1st forest fire that came along in an Ice Age would doom it to an early end.”

    If what was the case? You took some kind of leap and lost me there.

  57. Lee Kington says:
    May 31, 2010 at 9:43 am

    Anthony…. Ice news , of a different nature, from the other end of the globe…….

    ” The first samples already reveal intriguing evidence of climate complexity. In ice layers attributed to the Middle Ages, when Europe was unusually warm, the team found surprisingly high levels of carbon black particles, or soot. Levels were found to be twice as high as during the more heavily populated and industrialized 20th century, says geochemist Ross Edwards at the Desert Research Institute in Reno, Nev.

    Overlooked in climate projections until recently, carbon black is a powerful warming agent. The soot, scientists speculate, came from giant wildfires that likely occurred in Australia and South America. So much soot could have raised temperatures.

    Preliminary tests also showed that soot levels dropped during the cooler centuries after the Middle Ages, a period known as the Little Ice Age. “

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704655004575114010457906340.html?mod=wsj_india_main

    ___________________________________________________________________________

    Note how the Klimate Psychientists are working hard to blame anything but the sun for climate changes.

    Earlier research reported by NASA
    The Sun’s Chilly Impact on Earth

    “The paper, “Solar forcing of regional climate change during the Maunder Minimum,” by authors Drew Shindell, Gavin Schmidt, and David Rind, from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and co-authors Michael Mann and Anne Waple, from the Universities of Virginia and Massachusetts respectively, appears in the Dec. 7 issue of Science
    text

  58. Skepshasa: May 31, 2010 at 1:32 pm
    How can I get Dr. Bill to put me on his mailing list?

    It isn’t a public list, Skepshasa; they’re just some people that I know. You might consider doing the same yourself – the ‘act locally’ paradigm. If you are reasonably well-respected by your friends and the people you work with, and take pains to be realistic, you can have an effect. Not taking yourself too seriously, and including a bit of levity, doesn’t hurt either. ☺

    /dr.bill

  59. Icarus says: “Given that Arctic temperature continues to rise (quite substantially in recent decades), and that this rise can only reasonably be attributed to anthropogenic influences, can anyone honestly expect the current long-term decline of Arctic sea ice to slow down, stop or reverse?”

    Sure. It’s already done so.

  60. Steve and rbateman:

    Don’t get me wrong. I think we are in, and have been in, a cooling phase longer that most will agree with. I tend to watch the tiny underlying movements ignoring any few-year weather or short-cycle effects. I think the arctic ice will continue to grow for quite a while on the average from this point. How long, don’t know. One side of me even says possibly decades, but to me, it’s all to do with the sun and only over decades, not the short 11 year bumps. We’ll see. Follow the data (though it’s getting harder to get to the real stuff anymore, untouched by human minds and their computer models!).

  61. Gary Turner says: “Ah, but metric is so nineteenth century. We’re in the digital age, now. Imperial volume measures were based on halves and doubling—in other words, computer friendly powers of two.
    2⁰ 1 oz ounce
    2¹ 2 ? <–[jack]
    2² 4 gill…"

    There are two jacks in a gill. Gill is pronounced 'jill'.

  62. @Gail Combs
    May 31, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    Your link to “text” is broken and leads to domain.com. Would love to read what Schmidt and Mann have to say about what the sun did centuries ago (cough). Can you post the entire address or where you came across it?

  63. Expat in France says:
    May 31, 2010 at 9:50 am

    This is all brilliant stuff.

    The big problem being that WE can see the nonsense propagated about polar ice by those who, for their own reasons, dishonestly tell only half the true story.

    Of greater importance, however, is how this message may be forcefully propagated to government, and the mainstream media so that Joe Public gets the truth of the full picture, …

    Surely there is a duty somewhere, to make this stuff headline news?
    __________________________________________________________________________
    Those that OWN the presses CONTROL the news. I am sure the owners of the presses or in the case of the BBC the managers of the pension fund have placed big money in the carbon trade business.

    Gaining control of the news presses to advance public policies favorable to the shearers of the sheep and not the sheeple being sheared is nothing new. J.P. Morgan Interests Buy 25 of America’s Leading Newspapers and Insert Editors: U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917, page 2947

    “Mr. CALLAWAY: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record a statement that I have of how the newspapers of this country have been handled by the munitions manufacturers…..

    “In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, ship building and powder interests and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press in the United States.

    “These 12 men worked the problems out by selecting 179 newspapers, and then began, by an elimination process, to retain only those necessary for the purpose of controlling the general policy of the daily press throughout the country. They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. The 25 papers were agreed upon; emissaries were sent to purchase the policy, national and international, of these papers; an agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.

    “This contract is in existence at the present time, and it accounts for the news columns of the daily press of the country being filled with all sorts of preparedness arguments and misrepresentations as to the present condition of the United States Army and Navy, and the possibility and probability of the United States being attacked by foreign foes.

    “This policy also included the suppression of everything in opposition to the wishes of the interests served. The effectiveness of this scheme has been conclusively demonstrated by the character of the stuff carried in the daily press throughout the country since March, 1915. They have resorted to anything necessary to commercialize public sentiment and sandbag the National Congress into making extravagant and wasteful appropriations for the Army and Navy under false pretense that it was necessary. Their stock argument is that it is ‘patriotism.’ They are playing on every prejudice and passion of the American people.”

  64. I also have a problem with what Icarus says:

    “Given that Arctic temperature continues to rise (quite substantially in recent decades), and that this rise can only reasonably be attributed to anthropogenic influences…”

    Icarus, it is not a given that the Arctic temperature rise [or global rise in temperature for that matter] can “only reasonably” be attributed to human activity. On what premise do you base that conclusion?

    As a matter of fact, there is no empirical, testable evidence to back your claim. None at all. The Arctic is being pointed at by wild-eyed climate alarmists as proof of… what, exactly? The Arctic is a region, and it is counterbalanced by the Antarctic, which is gaining ice. As a result, global ice cover is average, neither higher nor lower.

    The planet, including the Arctic, is acting completely normally. Nothing out of the ordinary is happening. The observed cycles have been going on for many millennia, not just during the era of satellite observations.

    Conclusion: the current Arctic cycle is not attributable to human activity. If you can falsify that statement, have at it.

  65. Steven mosher says:
    May 31, 2010 at 1:00 pm
    The comeback would simply be that:

    1. Gore is no scientist
    2. Science makes flawed predictions all the time.
    3. They will point to other predictions that were no as Dire.
    4. They will argue that the trend is still down and that the tipping point is just around the corner.
    5. The fact that the ice doesnt disappear doesnt directly contradict the theory of global warming.
    6. That the ice retreat slowed because of some other reason.

    Blah blah blah.

    But if it proves correct, or even if the decline continues and 2007 is matched or exceeded, then you will probably regret the fact that you made it such a big issue.

    Its far better to focus on the uncertainties of the causation RATHER THAN the actual figures. cause you know, the ice could just disappear for other reasons, soot, winds, and SST patterns. Then, you’d be in a tougher position in the debate.. having made such an ICON out of the issue. basically, the CAGW types made the ice into an ICON. I judge accepting that ICON as the field of engagement to be a risky strategy.
    never let your opponent select the battle field. That’s just some friendly advice. Heck I told them to stop using the polar bear as an ICON. Looks like they are listening to that advice now.

    This is good spin advice but I choose not to go that route; I want to battle the facts. CAGW skeptics are constantly battling against bogus data. Give me any playing field that cannot be manipulated and I’m happy. What playing field would you choose?

    If Al Gore is discredited, and their spin is that he’s just a non-scientist, that’s progress. There is NO chance his prediction will come true — the Arctic can’t lose that much ice that fast. This won’t be a knockout blow but it’ll help.

  66. Gneiss says:
    May 31, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    The National Geographic positive feedback you referred to:
    If that is the case, in an Ice Age, a very large forest fire would deposit soot on the Ice Cap and begin inexorably melting it.
    The positive feedback would make it nigh impossible for an Ice Age to get going, let alone last 80,000 years out of the 100,000 year cycle that describes the last 1 million years of Earth’s geologic history.
    Got it?
    Under the N.G. soot positive feedback mechanism, the record should indicate 80,000 years of Interglacial and 20,000 years of Ice Age, or no Ice Age at all, per 100,000 years.

  67. Alan Simpson says:
    May 31, 2010 at 10:13 am

    I am not sure why Anthony and Steve are labouring this.
    _____________________________________________________________________
    Because the US Congress wants to pass a Cap and Trade law NOW and not in September. We need ammo to use against the scare mongers with their professional propaganda machine.

  68. wayne says:
    May 31, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    Steve Goddard says:
    May 31, 2010 at 2:57 pm
    Sea ice forms from the bottom. Fresh ice won’t cover dirty old ice.
    – –
    But snow will! It does snow in the Arctic doesn’t it? :)

    And it’ll be full of soot too (I’m talking about current soot from Asia).

  69. Icarus says:
    May 31, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    “Given that Arctic temperature continues to rise (quite substantially in recent decades), and that this rise can only reasonably be attributed to anthropogenic influences, can anyone honestly expect the current long-term decline of Arctic sea ice to slow down, stop or reverse?”
    __________________________________________________________________________
    Yes, anyone who is honest can. If climate ran in a linear trend mode then over the long term the earth would be a block of ice by now. Instead the climate runs in cyclical long term trends. The math is real simple. If the time period is short enough the slope of the curve is approximated by a line.

    That is why the CAGW propaganda machine changed its tune from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” recently and are in such a rush to get their carbon trading con in place. They need time to pick our pockets clean before we figure out it is just a con-game and reverse the damage. Unfortunately they will have skimmed the wealth from many nations leaving wreckage behind as they move on to implement the next con.

    Would you please do a bit of research on the people and groups behind this con-game starting with the World Bank/IMF. You do remember the leaked Denmark text do you not??? It blew Copenhagen out of the water. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank A brand new article as of today shows the text was clearly advantageous to the US and the west, would have steamrollered the developing countries, and was presented to a few countries a week before the meeting officially started.

    Here are a few articles you really should read whether you believe in AGW or not. Capitalist or liberal, most will agree the bankers are our real enemies once they are educated.

    IMF/World Bank Structural Adjustment Programs

    Today I resigned from the staff of the International Monetary Fund….
    Confessions of an Economic Hit Man:

    The Bankers Manifesto of 1892: History repeats itself in regular cycles.
    Evidence of Mr. Graham Towers: Governor of the Bank of Canada, appearing in 1939, before the COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND COMMERCE:
    1913 OUR MONEY SYSTEM: The Biggest Swindle in History!
    US Banks Operating Without Reserve Requirements
    1989: LEVERAGED BUYOUTS: AMERICANS PAYS THE PRICE

  70. Let me get this straight. You found one research group headed by Dr. Wieslaw Maslowski that is projecting rapid Arctic sea ice with an ice free polar region by 2013. Now as your BBC link states: “…other teams have variously produced dates for an open summer ocean that, broadly speaking, go out from about 2040 to 2100. ”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

    So, your alarmist guy is an outlier. Maybe he is right, maybe he is wrong. But he does not represent mainstream scientific opinion at this time. And where is he from? Who is backing his work? Why the good old U.S. Navy!

    See also:

    http://earthsky.org/earth/ice-free-arctic-summers-within-a-decade

    http://research.nps.navy.mil/cgi-bin/vita.cgi?p=display_vita&id=1023568034

  71. Your composite graph …

    … does not make sense to me as it is since you haven’t placed a parallel km^3 scale on the vertical axis. Also you don’t have a normal curve for volume. Could you clarify?

  72. Mike says:
    Let me get this straight. You found one research group headed by Dr. Wieslaw Maslowski that is projecting rapid Arctic sea ice with an ice free polar region by 2013. Now as your BBC link states: “…other teams have variously produced dates for an open summer ocean that, broadly speaking, go out from about 2040 to 2100. ”

    So, your alarmist guy is an outlier. Maybe he is right, maybe he is wrong. But he does not represent mainstream scientific opinion at this time.

    I suspect you haven’t understood the PR game being played here. And make no mistake, it is PR, not honest investigation, for if it were the latter, should there not be noisy objections from the AGW camp itself about the extremeness of this fellow’s views? But there aren’t, because the game is to scare the populace silly, not to uncover truth. And one nutcase getting crackpot views published as serious science serves the alarmist cause perfectly.

    Let me give you another example on a different topic. At a feminist conference once, two feminists got up on stage and congratulated each other for their great work ‘for the cause’. One feminist had published papers castigating academic men for disadvantaging young women by not mentoring them. The other had published papers castigating academic men for demeaning and patronising young women by mentoring them. The two feminists had exactly opposite claims, yet they congratulated each other for good work in a common cause. How can that be? Only if the real game was to vilify men, and the two arguments each served that covert goal. That is the kind of thing we are up against in the GW field. Honesty and truth are not the real goal. You have to understand that before you can understand anything.

  73. wayne says:
    May 31, 2010 at 2:39 pm

    rbateman says:
    May 31, 2010 at 11:09 am

    How much warming can soot cause when it’s buried under another meter of fresh ice?
    – –

    You are touching something that has been in the back of my mind for quite a while. The answer is not much if any at all. And if the next year is similar with more snow, not much again.

    But when a warmer period comes along the top layers melt which concentrates the soot at lower levels. Many years of this would cause all the multi-year soot to now be concentrated at the bottom thin layer. Presto, complete melt.

    In other words, is that mechanism partially at fault in the 2007 melt? Was it temperature driven at all?
    ______________________________________________________________________
    AHHhhh so soot would act to amplify the effect of a warm period, but have little/no effect on a cold period. I wonder if the layer of soot found in the ice by scientists is the result of an increase of yearly soot or is the result of an increase in yearly melt???

    Little facts like that always seem to get lost from CAGW type papers.

  74. Gail Combs wailing and flailing breathlessly says on May 31, 2010 at 4:55 pm :


    Those that OWN the presses CONTROL the news.

    NONE of which explains Drudge, James O’Keefe (of ACORN fraud exposure video fame), FreeRepublic.com, BigGovernment.com or BigJournalism.com FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck … have you NOT seen the decline of BIG media (Dinosaur Media Death Watch: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2398460/posts)?

    Are you living under a rock?

    Of course, Birchers NEED a cause, something to beat the drum with, something to start the stampede with, regardless of the validity of the issue they raise … you’re not one of those, are you?
    .

  75. wayne says:
    May 31, 2010 at 4:46 pm

    @Gail Combs
    May 31, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    Your link to “text” is broken and leads to domain.com. Would love to read what Schmidt and Mann have to say about what the sun did centuries ago (cough). Can you post the entire address or where you came across it?
    _________________________________________________________________________
    Sorry about that. I will do it again with out trying to get fancy.

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20011206/

    Reference

    Shindell, D.T., G.A. Schmidt, M.E. Mann, D. Rind, and A. Waple 2001. Solar forcing of regional climate change during the Maunder Minimum. Science 294, 2149-2152.

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2001/Shindell_etal_1.html

  76. Ron: I found this:

    Dr Serreze added: “I think Wieslaw is probably a little aggressive in his projections, simply because the luck of the draw means natural variability can kick in to give you a few years in which the ice loss is a little less than you’ve had in previous years. But Wieslaw is a smart guy and it would not surprise me if his projections came out.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

    Scientific debate is not as heated as blog debates. Interestingly Wieslaw Maslowski criticized Al Gore for over stating the case.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/palin-vs-gore-climate-showdown/

    You also have to be careful about just what “ice free” means. To researchers this does not mean zero ice, but media reports do not often make this clear.

  77. Steve,

    I always find your characterization of the Arctic interesting. Most amusing is your graph of sea ice volume superimposed on the sea ice extent…wow, with the extent being the lowest in the past 8 years, based on IJIS/JAXA data, http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
    And the volume you’ve projected not showing such similar decline, that means the ice that is there must be incredibly thick…off the charts thick…needless to say, I think you are highly mistaken, and if you’re still using the PIPS 2.0 data for your estimates, I am sure you are mistaken. It surprizes me that you would use this data when myself and others have gone to such lengths to show you why this data is suspect at best.

    Oh well, another of your famous Sea Ice updates has come and gone, and now the 2010 melt season is really going to get started in earnest with the extent starting at the lowest in 8 years, we’ll see how your incredibly (and I say erroneously) high volume holds up as we head through the heart of the summer and head to the September low…

  78. As much authority was vested in the US Navy’s sea ice data in the last post on the subject, it might be worth posting an actual study from that institution.

    http://soa.arcus.org/sites/soa.arcus.org/files/sessions/1-1-advances-understanding-arctic-system-components/pdf/1-1-7-maslowski-wieslaw.pdf

    (5.6 MB download)

    Their projection is a possible ice-free Arctic in fall by 2016. Strangely, they looked at a range of data sets over a long period, rather than picking out a couple of data points, but perhaps the Navy doesn’t know what it’s doing.

  79. stevengoddard says:
    May 31, 2010 at 9:21 pm
    “Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013′ …. Former US Vice President Al Gore cited Professor Maslowski’s analysis on Monday in his acceptance speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo.”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

    But, as I recall, the Professor later stated that he never said that.

    As you know, Gore makes stuff up.

  80. It’s amazing how you’ve superimposed the ice volume line onto the ice extent graph as if to suggest that it’s way, way, WAY above statistical average, whereas in actual fact Arctic sea ice volume has been declining steadily over the past years, and is currently at its lowest level ever.

    I wonder what you’re going to do to persuade yourself it’s still business as usual when all that summer ice is gone.

  81. The linear predictions model is clearly shown to be quite stupendously accurate in that most important arena of human reproduction, isn’t it?

    Don’t these folks know what hysterisis loops are??

  82. I don’t care what conspiracy of “global governance” there was behind the metric system — that fact is, metric is so much easier to work with than imperial measurements. How anyone can possibly defend the use of the imperial system, especially if they’re a scientist, is absolutely beyond me. At what temperature does water freeze on the Celsius scale? Why, zero! At what temperature does it boil? Why, 100! (assuming STP of course). It is contradictory for any first-world developed country to continue to use imperial in this day and age and yet call themselves modern.

  83. The discussion about soot made me wonder if anyone knows of any research into the nett effect on the global energy budget of melting ice? I do not mean models I mean actual measurements (sorry I know its a bit old fashioned!). It seems that the current model is a knee jerk assumption that ice reflects sunlight so if it melts the sea will absorb more and therefore warm. However it seems to me that the following model could also be true.

    Ice melts on the surface and once a film of water has formed this will absorb energy at a similar rate to open sea. Of course if there are soot particles it will definitely absorb at or above the rate of open sea. On the other hand the energy radiated from the surface of water on top of ice will be less than that radiated from open sea because the temperature will be lower. Thus ice is a nett warmer rather than a net cooler. It is equivalent to going out on a sunny but icy winter’s day with or without a thick but shiny hat. I think the shiny hat would still keep my head warm rather than cool it down.

    This would also address rbatemen’s view that if carbon particles were the cause of the ice age ending another ice age would never reform. If open water at the poles actually increases the nett loss to space one would see a slow warming as the ice got thinner and thinner and then a dramatic cooling as soon as the ice vanished completely. Although the regular periodicity of the ice ages makes an external forcing the only plausible explanation for them ( Milankovich cycles) it is possible that such a feedback mechanism might alter the actual timings by a thousand years or so.

    Does anyone know if either model has been PROVEN to be correct?

  84. Steve, it appears from this posting that you are deliberately trying to hide the ice extent decline. Many sources are now showing the ice extent right now to be the lowest observed during the satellite data record at this time of year, yet you continue to try to find other distractions so as not to mention this fact.
    It is very misleading to show an ice volume (with no units) on top of sea ice extent, and to show volume for 1 year without putting it into context of several years. Nor is it scientifically correct to pick two years (i.e. cherry picking) to try to make a point. It is long-term trends that are of importance, not individual years. Even so, stating that the ice is the same as it was 10 years ago simply is not true, there is no data supporting this claim.
    It is also incorrect to state that melt is not occuring in the Arctic. Solar radiation penetrates just below the surface of snow, causing melt to happen in the snow pack even if surface air temperatures have not yet reached 0 deg celsius. When melt is active in summer, the energy from the sun is used to melt the ice, keeping near surface air temperatures near 0 deg celsius. In addition, the southern reaches of the Arctic already observe air temperatures of 0 deg celsius, which is the normal progression (melt happens first in the souther latitudes, moving further northward as summer progresses). Thus, surface melt has already started in the Arctic. You can look the MODIS imagery yourself to see surface melt occuring.
    There is only 1 scientist stating ice-free summers by 2014, and that’s who Gore has relied on for his statements. It is unfortunate that Gore does that, he obviously likes drama, but that’s politics and media, not science.
    I think you lose credibility by not focusing on good data analysis and instead resorting to cherry-picking, false display of data and erroneous statements. There are some valid points to debate, but you seem to miss those.

  85. barry says:
    May 31, 2010 at 10:08 pm
    As much authority was vested in the US Navy’s sea ice data in the last post on the subject, it might be worth posting an actual study from that institution.

    http://soa.arcus.org/sites/soa.arcus.org/files/sessions/1-1-advances-understanding-arctic-system-components/pdf/1-1-7-maslowski-wieslaw.pdf

    (5.6 MB download)

    Their projection is a possible ice-free Arctic in fall by 2016. Strangely, they looked at a range of data sets over a long period, rather than picking out a couple of data points, but perhaps the Navy doesn’t know what it’s doing.

    _______________

    Thanks for that link Barry. Excellent post, and excellent counterpoint to Steve’s insistance that sea ice volume has increased 25%. And BTW, some of the charts used in that report come from the PIPS 3.0 data.

  86. One brief follow-up to the previous post, which come from the conclusion section of the report. It says:

    “The rate of decrease of sea ice thickness and volume appears to be much greater than that of sea ice extent…”

    This is exactly what the PIOMAS model is showing as well, and some of the reasoning behind my suggestion that we’ll see a lower summer minimum this year than 2008-2009.

  87. We need to stop making the argument that sea ice cannot melt if air temps are below zero (C). It can – provided there is water under the ice. A gradient of ice temperature exists between the ice-water interface (always around 0) decreasing toward the top surface air interface. The colder the air, the colder and thicker the ice.

    But its still going to recover in September :-)

  88. “It was invented by the French Revolution in its effort to de-sacralize reality, it was part of a wider secularizing project, to deny human ethics and moral principles. The STATE should replace GOD.”

    And that is why they drive on the right.

    (Sorry – totally O/T)

  89. BO says:
    June 1, 2010 at 9:14 pm

    Problem with BO? I find that Dove for men roll-on is a good solution, neutral pH, doesn’t pinch the hairs like some roll-ons, lasts longer than a stick.

  90. stevengoddard says:
    June 1, 2010 at 2:05 pm
    R Gates,

    You are correct. Volume hasn’t increased by 25% since 2008. A more accurate number is 36%.
    ——————————-
    Steve, you are basing this on a model, which is not reality. Please only use real data to make such assessments.
    Real data would likely show an increase in ice volume since you have more of the old ice today in the Arctic Basin than you had in 2008. So it is very likely that thickness did increase somewhat in the last 2 years, but you can’t put a number to it because you don’t actually have the thickness data to do that. Maybe you can find a scientist to process ENVISAT data for you so that you can at least have some thickness observations for part of the Arctic. That would help you to make your point, using model data to make your point is pointless.

    And I do disagree with you, nothing in your post was accurately stated. It seems you are afraid of letting the data speak for itself. Me thinks you are scared that your predictions are way off base so you are trying hard to divert attention to what the data are actually showing. But there are many of us on this site you can see through your attempts.

  91. Based on the Vostok Antarctic core analysis it would appear to me that earth is overdue for an ice age.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data

    In geography, do we know what the current position of earth is as regards to the Milankovitch cycles? Looking at the Vostok record, there does seem to be a progressive increase in time spans between previous 3 interglacials, i.e. ca. 87000, 110000, 120000 years but I have no idea as to whether this is linear, logarithmic or exponential. Any ideas/ Any one/?

  92. stevengoddard says:
    June 2, 2010 at 9:23 am
    JJB

    You claimed that everything in this post is inaccurate, and failed to cite a single example. Pretty lame.

    Well apart from the obviously false first sentence (an attempt at humor), there are quite a few, the most obvious:

    Temperatures in the Arctic interior have remained cold, and well below freezing. Not much opportunity for melt.

    An average of -3 to -4ºC north of 80ºN isn’t “well below freezing”, which for sea ice is about -2ºC.

  93. NSIDC sea ice images still show some ice left in the Riga Bay and in the Finnish Bay.
    There remains no ice and hasn´t been any for several weeks. Something is clearly wrong with the images.

  94. The North-West Passage is not about to be opened for business!

    The North-West Passage is not about to be re-opened for business!

Comments are closed.