Sea Ice News #14 – an inconvenient July

and if this trend continues……….
you gotta love it
Anthony, if you did this the same way they do climate computer programs,
we’re all going to be covered in ice

Yes, a trend from 2007 and ahead shows that we are all gonna die before 2035!
Please, Mr. President, can you help us? Ice-Tax for long-drinks?

The DMI Temp graph is doing what it did last year and then some.
Yes, the MSM will be serving more bilgewater to it’s mushroom base.
(How to raise your mushrooms – keep them in the dark and feed them moist garbage).

So, it’s now in a *horizontal* death spiral…?

It’s worse than we thought!

It looks like the forecast made by “Gavin” in a previous Arctic ice thread of 2010 losing more ice than 2007 will be wrong.

I’m looking forward to september…MSM will be quiet again

Wow, based on the y-axis label, that lead graph says the ice melt dropped by 600 trillion square kilometers from July last year to this year. Thats a lot of ice cubes!

That webcam picture is from webcam 1 and is dated 7th of July – that particular camera is apparently malfunctioning, since it hasn’t sent a picture since then.
The second webcam shows open, unfrozen melt ponds as of July 18th, 7:20 am – the pictures since then are however obscured by snow.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2010/images/noaa2-2010-0718-071857.jpg

Did Athony of Steve post this? I assume Anthony!
Anyway does this NOAA forecast graph for August 2010 to March 2011 have a place somewhere on this post. It looks like cooling at both poles for Jan Feb March 2011!!!!!
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/images3/glbT2mSea.gif

Ray says:
July 18, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Not to worry;
“Global Warming”, or should I say “Climate Change” can freeze up the poles too.
Didnt you know? Anything can happen when we have “Climate Change”.

“Second, it has been the slowest July Arctic melt in the eight year JAXA record.”

I recall reading last year that the ice would rapidly melt because it was thin, first year ice. They called it “rotten” and “flippy floppy”. Not joking!!!
“Rotten ice” = some silly fool seeking further funding
“Flippy floppy” = the fools of the Catlin Survey seeking more insurance funds

Peter Ellis,
Temperatures have been very cold at POPS-13 as mentioned in the same paragraph.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/POPS13_atmos_recent.html
Below -5C in the last 24 hours. Chances are that the former melt ponds are frozen solid.

If you look at Topaz, however, or the Cryosphere Anomaly chart they show the lead of 2007 over 2010 as less than half the others.
– – the difference is that area North of Alaska that has filled up with “brash” — like Ice cubes — Topaz sees it as Open Water ! Apparently, so does Cryosphere’s Anomaly measure..
Topaz at: http://topaz.nersc.no/topazVisual/matlab_static_image.php?action=NA_ARC_NWA_Function&file_prefix=ARC&match_date=20100717&depth=0005&variable_name=hice
Cryosphere ANOMALY graph: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg
– – one must download the pic & then paste pieces of 2007 near 2010 … well, I need to. A good Photo program can superimpose.- – And Steve: why gild the lilly ? JAXA data has 2010 July 1-17 at 849,532 … Which is ‘way below every other Month, but you have to put the bar BELOW 800,000.
Why ?
That’s why everyone distrusts ALL your homemade Charts, Steve.
And most of them I’ve found where your sources are & they are Real..
And most of this Post – – is right on the Nail !
I’ve remarked on what GISS Global has to use (their surface temps for the USA are superb — but then they allow Outsiders like Steven MacIntyre to have their Comments evaluated & incorporated if Correct.) but there are SO few sites in the Arctic – – that Graphic is wonderful
JAXA Data: at http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
Comparing _______2007___ to___ 2010
Ahead June 28______ no________ 679,531 Square Kilometers
Ahead July 17____ 458,437________ no
Daily Ice Loss:
July16-17 ______ – 93,906 ____ – 67,969 = _____ still ahead of ’06 by 56,719
July17-18 ______ – 71,406 ____ – ??
July18-19 ______ – 63,907 ___

No, there is a major minimum in global sea ice in February/March and a minor, less pronounced minimum in September. The maximum is in November. This is caused by the unevenness of how much of each latitude band in both NH and SH is covered by land and therefore cannot have sea ice.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Still reckon minimum 2010 NH ice will be within 1SD normal or spot on normal due to increased ice concentration.

http://stats.wordpress.com/g.gif?host=wattsupwiththat.com&rand=0.22925564870654913&blog=1799261&v=wpcom&user_id=0&post=22170&subd=wattsupwiththat&ref=http%3A//wattsupwiththat.com/
REPLY: What is this for? – Anthony

“The second webcam shows open, unfrozen melt ponds as of July 18th, 7:20 am ”
The NOAA2 cam images are interesting in that they show the ponds sometimes skimming over with ice. There was a rain event a day or two ago there and now the cam lens is covered with ice. So those ponds aren’t only melt, they are also accumulated rain/mist/other precip.
The latest DMI temperature graphs really have the temperatures low for this time of year and the current average looks like it is less than 0.5C. Precipitation (snow) melts at 0C but sea ice melts at a lower temperature depending on salt content. The older the ice, the higher the melting temperature as older ice has more of the salt worked out of it. The newest ice will melt at around -3C or so.
Going back through the DMI archives, I can spot no other year with temperatures this low at this date. Now to be sure, temperatures are fickle and subject (like most anything else) to wind behavior so things could change any day.

” Dave F says:
July 18, 2010 at 5:05 pm
http://stats.wordpress.com/g.gif …
REPLY: What is this for? – Anthony”
The wordpress smiley:
http://jrharshath.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/the-wordpress-smiley-named-g/

Phil?…Phil?…Phil?…

We’re broiling in the DC area. One of the TV weathermen said that the jet stream was staying north. Could this be why the N pole is staying colder than normal?

Amino Acids in Meteorites,
I’m still here. 🙂 At present, the ice is certainly not behaving as I expected it to. Well done to Steven Goddard. 🙂 However, I am still not convinced that the ice is in a high volume state – the images on modis appear to show lots of broken (and perhaps rotten ;)) ice, even around the area of the pole. So I am still anxiously waiting on September.

“We’re broiling in the DC area. ”
It is just a strong Bermuda High. It is also the reason there have been no hurricanes on the Eastern Seaboard. Weather, not climate. The temperatures in the center of the country are below normal. Mexico is WAY below normal. In fact, nearly the entire equatorial region of the planet is below normal.

I can’t find any DMI temps dipping quite this early, but 1972 and 2001 had similar dips shortly after this time of year.

Volume matters when surface area is low…surface area matters when surface area is high. Got it.

DR says:
July 18, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Technically OT, but has NCDC been monkeying with U.S. temp data? WUWT?
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=national&image=timeseries02&byear=2010&bmonth=01&year=2010&month=01&ext=gif&id=110-00
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Just where did you find THAT ???
That says it all, doesn’t it? Cold months do vary the most. Day by day, year by year there are some ups and some downs but over the many years it feels the same today as in 1960 or 1980, and guess what… it is exactly the same !!!!
(at least in the U.S. with our nationwide global heat energy shield in place since the roaring ‘20s :))
Anthony, post that one BIG and PERMANENT so all can link in emails to their family and friends (and adversaries) !!
Thanks DR, just what others like me have been looking for, at least one small smoking gun with NOAA’s logo on it!
REPLY: It’s a graph of January mean temperatures only, not the whole year mean. – Anthony

I’m new to this AGW debate but I have a question about the extent of sea ice in the artic.
If ‘during June, ice extent was below average everywhere except in the East Greenland Sea, where it was near average’ (NSIDC comment) why is everybody happy about the extent of the ice this July if it is below average?

Phil
Steve if you’re going to make stuff up at least make it plausible!
You continually want the reader to infer that Steven Goddard is deceiving people. Today is not the first time you imply it.

Tim McHenry says:
July 18, 2010 at 8:15 pm
The DMI is something to keep an eye on. It never gets very warm up there anyway, but it is curiously low this year, just like last year.

Frederick Michael says:
July 18, 2010 at 9:40 pm
The melt rate may have already picked up. The JAXA AMSR-E Arctic sea ice extent data shows the last two days losing over 70k sq-km per day.
To quote Han Solo — “I got a really bad feeling about this.”
I wouldn’t be too worried yet. 70,000 sq km is fairly average for this time of year. What we’ve had for the first couple of weeks in July was well below average. The east Siberian Sea still has a fair amount of ice to lose and when it does it normally does so quickly.
I agree with Stephen that we’ll see an increase in the rate of ice loss for the latter part of July but I still think once the ice is gone from the East Siberian Sea it should start to reduce again.
Incidentally, the 312,000 sq km between 2010 and 2009 is likely to disappear very quickly over the next 2 weeks. During 2009, the average ice loss per day for the last 2 weeks of the month was over 93,000 sq km. I’d be very surprised if we see that level of ice loss for the corresponding period this season. If we maintain a 70,000 sq km average by 1st August, this years ice extent will be nearly identical to 2009.
I’m still looking for a similar result to 2006. Looking at ice loss rates over the entire JAXA data set I find it unlikely we will see the rate of ice loss climb above 60,000 sq km on a 15 day moving average for the remainder of this melt season.

One look at the Cyrosphere Global Sea Ice Extent does it for me.
It says that when all is added up, the Global Temperature should be just about average.
A Global Climate reality check, if you will.

DMI artic mean temp has dropped back to ZERO today 19/7. 7/19 for our USA cousins

Mike D – what it means is that 2004 had the lowest total ice loss. this year lost 200,000 less than 2004.
Anyhoo I’m quite amazed that you’ve put in so many maps but not the one showing that arctic sea ice extent is at an all time low for the date at NSDIC. You know it exists as you’ve put up the Antarctic equivalent pic. What gives?

If someone were to plot a graph of how right or wrong warmists’ predictions are w.r.t. time…………………………………………………
And today I read on TVtext that 50, <5 year old kids died of extreme cold in Peru, while the most of south America is in a record cold, including the Amazon, where temperature is 9C instead of the normal 20C or thereabouts. (If my memory serves me well, this cold in the south of South America is the third consecutive winter). And all this happening while Antarctica has a record sea-ice cover, Australia under a continuous cold snap, the Arctic is not melting as it should and Europe is getting back into normal temps.
I dont see it at all going good for the warmists.

Steve,
I find an interesting coincidence that the arctic air has been bottled up from travelling south. The high pressures around the lower latitudes have been keeping the cold north.

5.5 million sounds too high to me. There’s going to be a big meltoff this week. I think we’ll end up near 5 million.

Thanks for this resume , very revealing.
The two graphs under the heading “GISS thinks it has been hot in the Arctic.” are particularly revealing. I note even areas with data tend to get warmer during the processing.
see: Scandinavia, northern Alaska, Nova Scotia. Also the areas with no data around the pole end up hotter (greater anomaly) than the surrounding areas with data!
This matches a report I saw here yesterday detailing similarly dubious interpolation in the Sahara, where significant areas without data ended up with greater anomalies than any surrounding data.
However, I really would appreciate these graphs being properly sourced. “GISS thinks” is not a reference and they should be complete with title and a legend for the colour scheme.
I’m only guessing that these are temp anomalies, and if I want to relate this info to someone else I NEED to have a proper reference for the source of my information.
Anthony, could you add this please?
Thanks.

Joe Lalonde
The Arctic Oscillation has been positive recently, which tends to keep cold air bottled up in the Arctic

Ammonite
Phil is confusing area with extent.

Phil,
What part of this map comparison is it that you are having difficulty understanding?
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=07&fd=15&fy=1990&sm=07&sd=15&sy=2010

Nice post Steve. Very informative. But you once again have not included MISOP …MIOMED, …or is it MYOPIC, or whatever the hell it’s called, which clearly models no ice in the Arctic.
There. Just thought I could save R Gates some time.

I think that you and others were saying that a slow melt in July was indicated at just the time when ice extent was the lowest on record about 6 weeks ago.
Seems that those who are more open-minded seem to be getting closer to the mark in making forward predictions?

The pools at the north pole are freezing:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2010/images/noaa2-2010-0719-071708.jpg
Now how do we count the area, as first year mm ice?
What is the probability of its melting again if the sun comes out? I discount air since it has such small heat capacity and is below 2C anyway.
I went to the year 2006 where it seems the JAXA is heading. Pools started freezing August 4. Seem clear before then. If you go to http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/index.php and select two months of images you can see the gradual freeze over of the open water:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2006/images/noaa3-2006-0804-2215.jpg
unfortunately it is camera 3. 1 and 2 do not exist then, but the optics are similar.
Go to
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2006/images/noaa3-2006-0804-2215.jpg
Pools gone by middle of August.

I feel here are lots of expert climate scientists. Does anybody know what causes the deceleration of artic ice loss? Any information appreciated.

Nice short term forecasting but you’re still not giving us any insights into what’s going on long term which I think is more important. I think you might even admit what you’re really describing here is weather not climate.
I think the first graph is a little misleading. Willis will give you a slap on the wrist for not starting the axis at 0 and giving us the full perspective, 2010 might look a little less dramatic.
Having said all that I think the AGW CO2 explanation for everything to do with climate is missing some major factors. I just wish I knew what they were.

A few more arctic ice notes–
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=1179&page=65
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=globalwarming&thread=1179&page=64#50889
.

Phil,
As far as Barrow goes, you were the one who was incorrect. The ice didn’t break away until July 5. Your were claiming it was gone a week earlier.

“Tenuc says:
July 19, 2010 at 5:45 am
The Cyrosphere sea ice concentration is very telling. It is much better than recent years and, along with the very quiet sun, I expect 2010 will end up better than 2009. With Antarctic sea ice at record levels, perhaps the warmers will see this as a global climate reality check? Although perhaps not, as it is clear evidence against their belief.”
Don’t believe it. As with religion they will not change their beliefs. Just read R Gates’ comments above: “Nothing so far has changed my forecast of 4.5 million sq. km. extent for this year’s melt seaon low, with a new record low of 2.5 million likely to be reached before 2015.” At least he is not forecasting an ice free Acrtic at that time. That will probably now follow in 2035 or thereabouts. I am still to see a comment from R Gates on the sea ice extent in Antarctica and the Global sea ice extent. Maybe I have missed these.

@R Gates
The above referred SST graph of the Arctic shows quite clearly that the region is experiencing anomalous warmth, and not anomalous cold.
All that is needed for high SST is a few days of sunshine and low winds. They can be gone just as quickly. Temperatures down a few hundred meters, plus ocean currents e.g. north atlantic drift, are a bigger factor – but less easy to assess remotely from satellites.

Has anyone done a Fourier transform on the data set? Is there an 8.5 year cycle there?

I cringe when I see comments by skeptics that think sea level rise can be partially attributed to heavily laden tankers, and proof the CO2 theory of GHG is wrong because after the no-fly days following 11-Sept-2001, with that much less resultant CO2 being discharged by jets, the mean global temperatures dropped. *sigh*
I also enjoy reading the the pro-AGW comments here, because I do want to understand their viewpoint better; particularly in the context of the articles posted on WUWT. Steve’s articles seem to attract the most AGW proponents to them, and thus are some of the most informative comments to read.
However, when I see a comment like this, I have to cringe for the pro-AGW folks:
Phil. says:
July 18, 2010 at 10:33 pm

Cryosphere Today shows that ice extent and concentration is about the same as it was 20 years ago.
Steve if you’re going to make stuff up at least make it plausible!
According to CT on this date in 1990 the area was: 6.8058658 Mm^2
whereas now it is: 5.5386882 Mm^2

(highlights mine)
Phil, you have been here long enough, and I know you are not naive in knowing the difference between sea ice area and extent. You appear to be disingenuous with this comment. You can do better than this.
Also, I would like to know where you obtained the CT area data. I briefly looked on their site, and their archives appear to only contain maps. I did not see a numerical historical data base. I would appreciate if you could point me to the data sets. Thanks in advance.
As an aside to Steve, thank you for this series. If I could make a suggestion: in your comment replies, some frustration comes through when addressing the pro-AGW comments. I can understand it to a large extent – when you get the volume of comments you do, and many of those comments contain implied or explicit ad-hominem attacks, it is only natural to want to reply in kind. However, your scientific data stands on its own, and any expressed frustration only detracts from it. I would suggest when you reply, that you write the reply, walk away from it for 10 minutes, and then re-read the reply. If the reply contains anything other than your data, delete it.

Thought you’d get a kick out of this:
http://arcticfocus.com/2010/07/19/sea-ice-melting-faster-in-arctic/
Sea ice melting faster in Arctic
Arctic Ocean sea ice melted faster last month than it has in any previous June since satellite measurements began 30 years ago, continuing a pattern that could see a record retreat by summer’s end, according to North America’s main ice-monitoring research centre, says vancouversun.com
The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center, the Colorado-based institute that tracks the annual cycle of winter ice buildup and summer thaw, says in its latest report that June’s rapid melt — which followed a similar record-setting retreat in May — means the polar ice cover remained on pace to shrink more than it did in 2007, when an unprecedented loss of ice first prompted scientists to raise alarms about the Arctic as a harbinger of global climate change.

Ron Dean and others,
Phil could have expressed his point better but he does have one. If the extent and concentration were the same now as at the same time in 1990 it would follow logically that the area would also have to be the same, since area = extent x concentration. Admittedly, “the same” is different from “about the same” but, assuming Phil’s area numbers are correct (and I second the request to know where he got them), the area is about 19% lower than for the same time in 1990., which strikes me as a significant enough difference somewhere in the combination of extent and concentration that I wouldn’t want to have to defend calling it “about the same”.

John Peter says:
July 19, 2010 at 9:54 am
“As with religion they will not change their beliefs. Just read R Gates’ comments above: “Nothing so far has changed my forecast of 4.5 million sq. km. extent for this year’s melt seaon low, with a new record low of 2.5 million likely to be reached before 2015.” At least he is not forecasting an ice free Acrtic at that time. That will probably now follow in 2035 or thereabouts. I am still to see a comment from R Gates on the sea ice extent in Antarctica and the Global sea ice extent. Maybe I have missed these.
_____
John, you might be new here, but I posted extensively about Antarctic sea ice and global sea ice in past posts. As a short course, GCM’s have long shown that the Arctic would be more severely affected by AGW than the Antarctic and there are many very good reasons for this, not the least of which is the huge heat sink the is the southern ocean, but added to that is the very different environments and dynamical systems they are. Antarctica is a frozen continenent surrounded by water, with sea ice forming every year in that water. The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by mainly ice free land (the exception being Greenland). Those who point to Antarctica as “proof” that AGW is not happening truly do not know of what they speak.
In terms of my contention that we’ll see 2.5 million sq. km. sea ice extent by 2015, I’ve got very solid scientific reasons for this forecast, as so it is hardly a “religion”. This is based on:
1) The trend of Arctic Sea ice over the past 20+ years
2) The fact that even during a long and deep solar minimum of 2008-2009 with a La Nina added in for good measure, the Arctic Sea ice could not recover in any meaningful way. Yes, 2008 & 2009 showed some slight uptick from the very low year of 2007, but these would hardly be classified as recoveries by any expert.
3) We will be seeing increased solar activity and increased total solar irradiance between now and solar max in 2013. Should we get a decent El Nino in 2012-1013, we could see summer sea ice extent even lower than 2.5 million sq. km. A simple look at this graph will show you why the solar activity combined with El Nino in the same years can be so potent:
http://www.climate4you.com/ (click on “sun” in the left hand column)
Nothing that has happened this year, or any of the last few years in the Arctic has changed my forecast. The long term trend of Arctic sea ice on a seasonal basis is quite clear…and that’s down. Whether we end this year at 4.0 million sq. km. or 6.0 million, it won’t affect the longer term trend in the least, as anything in this range is far lower than the longer term average. We’d have to have 5 to 10 years of steadily increasing summer minimums, trending back up to the 7 or 8 million sq. km. range of summer minimums for any scientifically based contention that the Arctic sea ice was in recovery. A quick look at these graphs shows you why that is mathematically and scienficially true:
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2009/stroeve.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

phlogiston says:
July 19, 2010 at 10:13 am
@R Gates
The above referred SST graph of the Arctic shows quite clearly that the region is experiencing anomalous warmth, and not anomalous cold.
All that is needed for high SST is a few days of sunshine and low winds. They can be gone just as quickly. Temperatures down a few hundred meters, plus ocean currents e.g. north atlantic drift, are a bigger factor – but less easy to assess remotely from satellites.
______________
Arctic SST’s and air temps have shown warm anomalies for many months. I’ve been talking about them since at least Jan-Feb. when all the AGW skeptics were crowing about the snow in Florida as proof of that AGW is wrong, I was pointing out the actual causes of that cold air in Florida…which was the high pressure systems parked over N. Canada and Greenland, bringing them warm temps and pushing the cold air south…to cause the snow in Florida.

HR says:
July 19, 2010 at 9:12 am
Having said all that I think the AGW CO2 explanation for everything to do with climate is missing some major factors. I just wish I knew what they were.
__________
I don’t know of any global climate modesl that use only the increases in CO2 and other greenhouse gases as an explanation for “everything to do with climate”. I think some AGW skeptics would do well to study the actual global climate models to at least understand what factors they do look at when making longer range forecasts. These models are far from perfect (as we all know) but they are far more sophisticated then some skeptics might like to give them credit for being.

One of the reasons that I remain 75% convinced that AGW is a valid hypothesis is in multi modes of confirmatory data. The long term downward trend in Arctic sea ice is just one mode, but I also look to the predicted stratospheric cooling that has been predicted by AGW and is occurring as well as ocean acidification (through the absorption of CO2) that is occurring, and other smaller signs (but equally confirmatory), such as the warming of the Great Lakes. Those who live in the region know this well, and here’s a great recent story on it:
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/07/19/19climatewire-lake-superior-a-huge-natural-climate-change-83371.html

Like R. Gates, I would rate myself as a 75%+ believer in Anthropogenic Global Warming, and the cheering is a mite premature, gentlemen.
(1) University of Bremen Arctic ROOS shows the ice extent in July to be the second lowest ever (2007 being the lowest).
(2) PIPS? How old? Well, say no more.
(3) Cryosphere Comparative maps? I stopped believing in these some time ago. The site calls them “Older Products”, which suggest to me they are no longer supported. The present day map shows much higher ice concentration than the current daily map.
(4) Global ice Extent? Well, there are two processes here – one (Arctic) is consistently below average, the other (Antarctic) consistently above. Hmm, suggests to me two different processes. Which of course is the case, Antarctica being most land ice, so the information to be gained by a simple addition is questionable.
(5) Ice blogger Neven shows a large crack opening where Steve sees melt pools freezing over.
http://www.tadpolesoftware.com/ice/noaa2_Jul_17_to_18.gif
All in all, 2010 is not yet over. There is a lot to wait and see about. Perhaps this time next year we will be looking at CryoSat-2 data.

Jon P,
“He is limiting his statement to the data source of Cryosphere Today, in particular their compare tool in which pictures tell the story.”
Phil’s area data was also sourced to Cryosphere Today – “According to CT on this date in 1990 the area was: 6.8058658 Mm^2 whereas now it is: 5.5386882 Mm^2”. If you want to claim the CT maps are good but their numerical data is bad, be my guest. I have more faith in their published numerical data than in anyone’s ability to eyeball the comparison maps and determine how two dates differ.

Phil,
You do understand the difference between the freezing point and the dew point?
Think H2O. Ice freezes directly out of the air below the freezing point, but doesn’t accumulate until below the dew point. The freezing point is not affected by the partial pressure. Above the dew point, sublimation occurs as fast as freezing.
I’m sorry that you have had difficulty understanding this.

Djon,
I make no claims other than the ridiculous nature of people to play gotcha games with people’s statements rather than trying to contribute information for all of us to share. It breaks up the flow of those of us that are trying to learn and hear a fair representation from BOTH sides. The only thing that Phil and now you seem to contribute is contention and accusations. I’ll pass on further posts from the both of you.
R. Gates and Anu keep up with your counter posts I find them informative and a good presentation of the other side, even if R Gates is stubborn as heck!

As of today, it looks like the polar temperature has dropped to 273.15 K.
The last time I took high school chemistry, it was hard for ice to keep melting at that temp.

Jon P,
“I make no claims other than the ridiculous nature of people to play gotcha games with people’s statements rather than trying to contribute information for all of us to share. It breaks up the flow of those of us that are trying to learn and hear a fair representation from BOTH sides. The only thing that Phil and now you seem to contribute is contention and accusations. I’ll pass on further posts from the both of you.”
Your apparent inability to acknowledge that Phil did contribute information in the form of data on the northern hemisphere sea ice area in 1990 versus 2010 doesn’t suggest to me that you’re interested in giving both sides of arguments here a fair hearing. If your mind is already that closed, your threat to ignore anything Phil and I write in future strikes me as rather empty. So go ahead and add us to your personal kill file. Julienne too, I suppose, since she also has the temerity to offer data showing that the extent is lower now than at the same time in 1990.

In all fairness, Steven, why don’t you just admit that you didn’t see that the image from webcam #1 hasn’t been updated since July 7th (I didn’t notice it either until now) and have it over with? It’s no big deal, certainly not worth dodging questions for.

Here are youtube links for Adussamatov :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYf5oOpi3i8
“We have found that climate sensitivity to CO2 dropped with
increasing water vapor concentrations” – he uses radiative transfer codes like Miskolczi.

R Gates July 19, 11:42 am
SSTs are a shifting mosaic giving scope for selectivity. On a wider scale there has been a trend of a receding tail of warm surface water in the Atlantic from the dying el Nino, and a more pronounced reversal to surface cooling in the Pacific. There is an interesting tension between a PDO well into negative phase against an AMO near the end of a generally positive phase, giving some sporadic warm holdouts in the Atlantic; however within a few years the AMO will join the PDO in negative territory. And Bob Tisdales website and analysis show OHC in the Atlantic to have been on a downward slope for a number of years.
I feel that the analysis of Tsonis to be pesuasive with emphasis on a kind of nonlinear “regime change” triggered by ocean cycle phase synchrony. This could correspond with Abdussamatov’s 2014 NLIA, after which we may find ourselves in EM Smith territory. Better find some jars for pickling fruit and veg.
O and BTW the AMSE site shows Arctic temps heading stubbornly lower despite those SSTs.

noiv says:
July 19, 2010 at 5:12 pm
“The extent includes now a lot of open water:”
Yeah, enough to drown a kitten.

Pamela Gray says:
July 19, 2010 at 3:22 pm
R Gates. tsk tsk. The cooling of the stratosphere is overwhelmingly Solar related. CO2, if enough of it is up there to act as more than an insignificant coolant (and there is no data to say it is or whether or not its percentage has changed), acts as an additional insignificant coolant that is probably well within the cyclical solar caused temperature noise. You also cannot relate the contention that the rise of CO2 to stratospheric cooling to a confirmatory mode of global warming, since its presence there does not affect our temperature. Very weak point and easily counterpointed
_______________________
Pamela,
My point is that it is happening and it was predicted to happen by GCM’s when factoring in the increase in GHG’s. Of course it is not proof, but is one additional data to help tip the scale in my estimation. For example, if it wasn’t happening, AGW models would be hard pressed to give an explanation as it is not a side-effect or minor effect, but a prime and principal effect of increased CO2 levels.

Julienne says:
July 19, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Based on data at NSIDC:
July 17 1990 July 17 2010
ice extent = 9.09 ice extent = 8.21
so even when you look at actual ice extent you can tell that 2010 has less ice than 1990.
____________________
Thank your for that, Julienne. It’s nice to have a true expert step in and keep the facts accurate.

Julienne
I’m looking at areas of potentially perennial ice in the Arctic interior. There appears to be more ice there in 2010 than 1990 in the UIUC maps.
In my reports, I have consistently ignored those regions which almost always melt before September

Phil,
An individual molecule has absolutely no knowledge of vapour pressure. Molecules freeze below the freezing point. The dew point is where sublimation is equal to freezing.
Vapour pressure is a statistical concept, and has no impact on the behaviour of individual molecules. The fact that you don’t understand something does not make someone else a “liar.” You lack both education and manners.

Smokey,
Nothing can be ‘proven’ as such outside mathematics or logic, which each require unproven assumptions or axioms to begin with.
Thus, you can remain sceptical of – for example – quantum mechanics, but operate as if it is true. I and others term this ‘provisional acceptance’. This means that you accept it due to the overwhelming preponderance of evidence in its favour and operate as if it is true, with the understanding that it is possible for it to be demostrated as likely false at any moment.
This means that you are not 100 per cent certain – you cannot be, as such certainty is beyond both deductive and inductive reasoning, the only two kinds of reasoning that we have.
Re CAGW, I provisionally accept it, which means that I operate as if it is true while understanding that it could be overturned at any moment.
I am probably not with R Gates on his 75/25 percentages, or even his never going lower than 5 per cent. Indeed, accepting something ‘100 per cent’ – whatever that means – is not something that I really understand, either. At a functional level, I operate as though I accept a multitude of theories 100 per cent (I do not throw myself out of one out of every 100 tall buildings I come across, for example). But I still accept that the theory of gravity will in all likelihood be modified in the future. Likewise with CAGW.
So in a sense you are correct: either you operate as if proposition X is true or you operate as if proposition Y is false (100%/0%). But looking at that in a binary way does not do justice to how people mentally operate, which in my case is ‘if the evidence for proposition X seems strong enough to me, provisionally accept it’.

Looks like DMI polar temperature has touched zero C, a month ahead of schedule.

David Gould says:
July 19, 2010 at 8:42 pm:
Re CAGW, I provisionally accept it, which means that I operate as if it is true while understanding that it could be overturned at any moment.
Which then, in turn, means that you will do exactly what, in regard to how you “operate” in life?
Well, Billiard Balls seem to have approximately the same amount of functional thinking…and fate. Except that Billiard Balls don’t have to obey the “Precautionary Principle”, so at least they are allowed to move.

Correction; Take that of todays figure of 7.77 msk; read Take that OFF todays figure of 7.77 msk…

Steve:
… the Arctic is behaving as NOBODY FORECAST.
You said a “recovery” from 2009. That’s NOT what has been happenning ! — unless you want to pick out particular days.
Even at DMI http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
–2010 is back up to #2 — & dropping like a Stone – – Today.
A New Soap Opera Tomorrow.
Even Wayne Davidson missed the El Nino being a “lingering” Modoki type — at some Point, the La Nina OPEN SKIES will take over (& I do not mean this mini-clearing). SUN = MEGA-MELT. When ???
…2007 had 8 Strong days following today:
JAXA Data: at
Comparing _______2007___ to___ 2010
Ahead June 28______ no________ 679,531 Square Kilometers
Ahead July 17____ 458,437________ no __but ahead of ’06 by ___56,719
Ahead July 19____412,188_________no __ but ahead of 2006 by __99,531
Daily: ___________2007__________2010__
July16-17 ______ – 93,906 _____ – 67,969
July17-18 ______ – 71,406 _____ – 81,562 (was 84,687preliminary)
July18-19 ______ – 63,907 _____ – 100,000p
July19-20 ______ – 92,187 ____
July20-21 ______ – 103,438 ____ ( PS half of preliminaries fall 1-to-10 % next day)
July21-22 ______ – 100,250 ____
Next:—— 5 more days @ 95,000
———– 5 days @ 50,000
———– 4 days @ > 100,000
———— 4 Days @ 80,000
————22 days @ 50,000
PIOMAS Update – – 31 days & no update.
Pips Displacement = Ice Drift is what I follow most, lately:
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/retrievepic.html?filetype=Displacement&year=2010&month=7&day=19
__IF__ it firms up, then the Weather has stabilized — the last few days, 2007 had a glitch – – we’ll see about 2010: Today was like 2007’s which MAY Melt it ALL off — but also closes the dangerous Taimyr-to-Pole corridor that had been melting instead. But I think maybe a week or 4, or 6, till OPEN SKIES = OPEN ARCTIC. I hope, several weeks. Early Melt = DEATH. Read my Sea Ice Outlook or even the joking summary at http://hot-topic.co.nz/arctic-sea-ice-projections-6-billion-dead-within-a-year-it-really-is-grim-up-north
Re Wayne Davidson: http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2010/06/a-correlation-.html “ships at the Pole will wander unobstructed in August 2010”

Smokey says:
July 20, 2010 at 2:28 am
“David Gould:
“If people ‘mentally operate’ in such a way that they jettison the Scientific Method in favor of true belief, then nothing will help them unless the scales fall from their eyes and they see the world as it is, not as they fear it might be.”
“Nothing can help a person who plays word games like that.”
————————————————————————————-
Good grief, some ridiculous discussion about the meaning or not of 100% and mixing it with belief? Talk about word games. To R Gates, give up please, don’t waste your time, after all none so blind as those who don’t want to see, I’m a just less than 100% person too, it makes sense.

It is now 20 July, the ice area according to Nansen is the same as in 2008 and 2009, so just enjoy the summer, and in September we will see if the minimum extend is 5.5 or 4.5 million square km. And show the same class as Flanagan did last year, who stayed polite to the bitter end, and then quietly left.

While I am just an armchair teacher, I have taught basic atmospheric science at the middle school level to some very bright but emotionally different students. Here is what I know. There are several interesting things about the stratosphere, including that it heats up with increasing altitude, which stabilizes this gradient (the opposite of the thermosphere, which wants to overturn). Why does it heat up? The major cause is UV absorption.
Ozone absorbs more ultraviolet radiation than do the other gasses that make up our air. Ozone lives in the stratosphere. As a result, the stratosphere is heated, and air gradually increases in temperature to the top of the layer, called the startopause.
So Phil, what does the Sun do during minimum in terms of UV?
1. Ultraviolet irradiance (EUV) varies by some 1.5 percent from solar maximum to minimum.
2. Energy changes in the UV wavelengths involved in production and loss of ozone have atmospheric effects.
3. The 30 hPa atmospheric pressure level has changed height in phase with solar activity during the last 4 solar cycles.
4. UV irradiance increase causes higher ozone production, leading to stratospheric heating, while decreases lead to stratospheric cooling.
And because the stratosphere is not well mixed due to lack of turbulance, gasses layer themselves according to weight. CO2 is quite heavy and would be near the bottom, which seems to me would allow the Sun to do its heating and cooling UV magic unimpeded by CO2 in the stratosphere.
Match point

There have not been very many measurements of CO2 in the stratosphere. Nor do we have any kind of a long term record. What has been measured so far shows that CO2 does not have a very regular height within the stratosphere (thicker in some areas, thinner in others) but it definitely decreases with increasing stratospheric height, an observation fully expected. There is also a night/day change of temp in the stratosphere that can easily be seen as Ozone waxes and wanes over the same period in concert with UV absorption as the Earth rotates. So mathematically, the day/night noise is there, overlayed by the solar cycle, especially significant with high TSI related UV maximums and low TSI related UV minimums.
Finally, none of this significantly affects our temps in the thermosphere.
FYI: I am familiar with both the ionosphere (the total depth at which the Sun is capable of ionizing our atmosphere), as well as the homo- and heterosphere, having to do with mixing of gasses.

Again, for the calendar-deprived:
the Arctic summer melt season is from June 21 to September 22, 2010.
And how has this first month, of three, been so far ? Well, there’s still one day left (of JAXA updates), but threads on WUWT dry up after 3 days, so here’s the progress so far:
Second lowest sea ice extent on record (2010/07/19):
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png
Second lowest sea ice area on record (2010/07/19):
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Area.png
But, but, what about the Danish Meteorological Institute ? Didn’t they at least have bad news about sea ice extent, when the threshold is 30% (unlike NSIDC and IARC-JAXA, which uses 15%) ?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Tue Jul 20 08:00:02 GMT 2010
Second lowest on record.
Gee, only the second lowest Arctic sea ice on record for this date in July.
Let’s see how the final 2/3 of the melt season plays out, shall we ?
Now, back to your premature celebration.

Jimbo says:
July 18, 2010 at 2:35 pm
AGW is on a slow motion train wreck; they should jump ship now while the going is relatively good.:o)

Nobody speaks more eloquently for the WishfulThinkers than “Jimbo” – you should elect him your Leader or something:
http://tinyurl.com/24vmlt5

Smokey says: July 20, 2010 at 1:08 pm
“Anyone can see that for every 34 molecules of CO2 emitted in total, less than one of those molecules can be attributed to human emissions.”
If 33 molecules of CO2 are emitted and subsequently absorbed there is no net change to atmospheric concentration. If 34 molecules are emitted but only 33 are subsequently absorbed the atmospheric concentration of CO2 rises. The claim that man’s “small” additional levels of emission cannot have an effect is patently false. If you get one extra piece of clothing to wash each week but don’t do it what happens across a year?

Steve, ok I did a quick regional assessment:
On July 17th 1990 shows (all extents in million sq-km):
central Arctic = 2.03215
Beaufort = 0.800339
Chukchi = 0.563294
E. Siberian = 0.906707
Laptev = 0.637717
Kara = 0.637934
In 2010, the values are:
central Arctic = 1.99408
Beaufort = 0.694839
Chukchi = 0.589379
E. Siberian = 1.30243
Laptev = 0.669927
Kara = 0.604491
So you can see, in the interior of the ice pack, the ice extent is actually lower than in 1990. Thus, I don’t agree with your statement “I’m looking at areas of potentially perennial ice in the Arctic interior. There appears to be more ice there in 2010 than 1990 in the UIUC maps”.
Where there is more ice in 1990 than today is in the Chukchi, E. Siberian and Laptev Seas, and this reflects the advection of older ice into these regions under the negative AO state this past winter and the low pressure. In the Beaufort there has actually been a slight gain of ice during the first 2 1/2 weeks in July because of the ice divergence, and yet it remains lower than in 1990. All other ice regions still show overall ice loss during July, with the fastest rates of ice loss in the Laptev and Kara seas.
Right now the average rate of decline for the entire Arctic through July 17th is around 73,000 sq-km per day, way slower than in 2007, but I suspect it will start to pick up again, especially in the E. Siberian Sea.

Smokey says: July 20, 2010 at 2:18 pm
“You make the false assumption that the biosphere is incapable of absorbing that one CO2 molecule out of every 34+ that are emitted.”
Total human land clearance and fossil fuel comsumption has produced roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon, enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. Concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere do have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce. So the truth is in the middle – a proportion of those extra molecules are being absorbed and a proportion are building up. It is the latter that are responsible for AGW.
Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11,731-11,748.
Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193.
Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79

Ozone absorbs more ultraviolet radiation than do the other gasses that make up o
ur air. Ozone lives in the stratosphere. As a result, the stratosphere is heated
, and air gradually increases in temperature to the top of the layer, called the
startopause.

Nitrogen absorbs UV but at a higher energy than oxygen which also results in photochemistry, i.e., it blows it apart to produce ions.
Since nitrogen ions have a high affinity for oxygen, the nitrogen ions dominate
the mesosphere and the oxygen ions dominate the stratosphere.
The heating and cooling of the stratosphere is also a result of the mixing of the mesosphere with the stratosphere.
When mesosphere cools, there’s a downward flow of air and the nitrogen ions gobble up the oxygen ions in the stratosphere which depletes the ozone.
This cools the stratosphere and increases the volume of ice crystals which increases the Earth’s albedo resulting in cooling of the Earth’s surface.

3. The 30 hPa atmospheric pressure level has changed height in phase with solar activity during the last 4 solar cycles.

If I recall correctly, the high pressure region shifts its position as a result of the change in the electromagnetic fields. I just can’t remember in what direction. I would guess the shift is from lower latitudes to higher latitudes corresponds to a larger down draft over Antarctica (and to a lesser extent the Arctic.)
I’ll try to dig up a URL of a blog which provides a much better explanation of the dynamics of the ionosphere.

And re this comment:
“You make the false assumption that the biosphere is incapable of absorbing that one CO2 molecule out of every 34+ that are emitted.”
We know that the biosphere is incapable of aborbing that extra molecule. Observation has demonstrated that the CO2 fraction in the atmosphere is increasing. Thus, absorption is not occurring.

Thrasher, I’m not including all the regions in the Arctic, only those that border the central Arctic Ocean. Yes, there is still ice in the Canadian Archipelago, Baffin Bay, E. Greenland Sea.

Wayne, when you include all the regions of the Arctic, then 2010 has less ice than in 1990. I was only looking at the central Arctic and the regions bordering it.

Julienne says:
July 20, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Wayne, when you include all the regions of the Arctic, then 2010 has less ice than in 1990. I was only looking at the central Arctic and the regions bordering it.
~~~~~
Ok. Still amazing that these regions you listed above of some 5.5 million km2 of extent shows 2010 greater than 1990. I just find that very curious and I know it shifts year to year and date to date, still I find it curious. That’s twenty years ago levels, ok, just for these central regions.

Pamela Gray says:
July 20, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Wow. I had no idea the Earth pays attention to calendar dates. Is she sentient? Now that’s a new AGW affect we haven’t heard yet.
Anu, you can come up with something better than this. Your point is too silly to consider seriously.
I’ll just assume you were enjoying the summer with some alcoholic beverages today.
Humans made up calendars based on Earth orbit events (the Sumerians and Egyptians made the first calendars about 5000 years ago):
http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/booksellers/press_release/studentscience/gif/equinox1.gif
The northern hemisphere “Summer” is from the June 21 Summer Solstice to the September 22 Autumnal Equinox. It’s not by accident that Summer is hotter than Spring.
Now note where the Arctic sea ice extent bottoms out:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png
Did I mention Autumn starts September 22 ? That’s when the Summer melt season ends. The actual date of minimum sea ice extent varies a few days around that date. Mark it on your calendar.
And enjoy the Summer…

Steven: July 19, 2010 at 5:10 am…
indeed you are correct… I assume you do know the NSIDC graph I refer to http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100720_Figure2.png
and I must have had a cache issue as I saw your post, went to check, pressed refresh and got a couple of new week’s data showing the line had crept above the 2007 again. So yeah who says I never fess up to a mistake… sorry.