Sea Ice News #15

By Steve Goddard

The Arctic is proud to have been listed as one of many “fastest warming places on earth.”

The GISS 250km Arctic image below shows temperature trends from 1880-2009. Areas in black represent regions with no data.

In most fields of science, data is considered an essential element of historical analysis. But climate science gets a pass, because it involves “saving the planet.” Antarctic coverage is equally as impressive. The image below looks right through the earth to the Arctic hole.

Temperatures in the high Arctic have been running well below normal and have started their annual decline. There are only about 30 days left of possible melt above 80N.

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

This can be seen in North Pole webcams which show the ice frozen solid.

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/webphotos/noaa2.jpg

As forecast in last week’s sea ice news, ice loss accelerated during the past week over the East Siberian Sea due to above normal temperatures.

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

The modified NSIDC map below shows (in red) regions of the Arctic that have lost ice over the past week.

The modified NSIDC map below shows (in red) ice loss since early April.

The modified NSIDC map below shows (in red) ice loss since July 1. The Beaufort Sea has actually gained ice (green.) Looks like a Northwest Passage traverse is quite possible (by helicopter.)

Ice loss from July 1 through July 23 has been the slowest on record in the JAXA database. Ice loss during July has been about one half that of 2007.

The graph below shows the difference between 2010 and 2007 melt. 2010 started the month half a million km² behind 2007, and is now half a million km² ahead of 2007.

The modified NSIDC image below shows the difference between 2007 ice and 2010 ice. Green indicates more ice in 2010, red indicates less.

“Climate expert” Joe Romm reported in May

Arctic sea ice shrinks faster than 2007, NSIDC director Serreze says, “I think it’s quite possible” we could “break another record this year.” Watts and Goddard seem in denial

Average ice thickness continues to follow a track below 2006 and above 2009, hinting that my prediction of a 5.5 million km² minimum continues to be correct.

During July, ice movement has been quite different from 2007 – which had strong winds compressing the ice towards the pole. By contrast, July 2010 has seen winds generally pushing away from the pole. Thus the ice edge on the Pacific side is further from the pole. No rocket science there, and a pretty strong indication that the alleged 2007 record summer melt was primarily due to wind.

Cryosphere Today showed two days ago that Arctic Basin ice is nearly identical to 20 years ago, but unfortunately their web site is down and I can’t generate any images.

NCEP forecasts warm temperatures in the East Siberian, Chukchi and Beaufort Seas for the next week, so I expect that melt will continue around the edges of the Arctic Basin.

Meanwhile, Antarctic ice continues well above normal. Antarctica is also the fastest warming place on the planet.

Conclusion: There is no polar meltdown at either pole.

Next week we start comparing PIOMASS forecasts vs. reality. PIOMASS claims that Arctic ice is the thinnest on record.

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

Don’t forget to bookmark WUWT’s new Sea Ice Page


Sponsored IT training links:
Subscribe for 350-030 training and get up to date 70-649 materials with 100% success guarantee plus get free demos for 220-701 exam.


About these ads

226 thoughts on “Sea Ice News #15

  1. Looks like a Northwest Passage traverse is quite possible (by helicopter.)

    And by that chap in kayak (carrying it).

  2. Conclusion: There is no polar meltdown at either pole.

    There is. It’s just hidden. Trenberth is on the job looking for it.

  3. It does not mean anything (yet), but Nansen (Arctic ROOS) shows the ice extend the same in 2008, 2009 and 2010. So everybody can still hope (my simpleminded prognosis from November 2009 was 5 Million sq-km because “minimum ice has never increased 3 years in a row”).

  4. Pity the Northwest Passage looks like it may remain shut this year. I really enjoy the exploits of the fellows who force their way through, (even if their politics is a bore.)

    There is a Norwegian with a really neat trimaran who is waiting up at the top of Norway, and hoping to do a complete circuit, including both the Northwest and Northeast Passage. Looks a bit like he may have to call it off until next year.

    However those trimarans can really fly. And sometimes these narrow strips of open water appear right along the arctic shorelines. Maybe the wind will blow the ice in towards the poles, and the fellow will get tempted…..

    I myself would rather sail in warmer waters, (if I could afford it,) but it sure if fun to sit at my computer and watch these crazy dudes dash across the stretches of open waters, and dodge the shifting ice. (Also I don’t suppose they have to worry about modern-day pirates, that far north.)

  5. “Arctic sea ice shrinks faster than 2007, NSIDC director Serreze says, “I think it’s quite possible” we could “break another record this year.”
    Watts and Goddard seem in denial”

    In denial of what, Dir. Serreze ? That the world is going under?

    Please take a realism test. Look around you. The world is a better place than ever.
    And you are denying it.

    The logical conclusion is that it is You who are in denial.

  6. “Looks like a Northwest Passage traverse is quite possible (by helicopter.)”

    LOL!! Thanks, Steve, well done!

  7. Thanks for the polar weather update Steve…you go a great job looking at Arctic weather.

    Now, as far as your final conclusion:

    ” There is no polar meltdown at either pole.”

    __________
    I take it you’re talking about the weather here and not the climate. Of course, climate can only be seen over the longer term, and it is more than obvious that the Arctic sea ice has been in a long term state of decline for many years. We’ve not seen a positive Arctic sea ice extent anomaly since 2004.

    In terms of the rest of the summer, look for all that ice that has spread out over the past few weeks (hence the real reason for the extent to have slowed) to begin to melt rapidly. The waters are warm and that low concentration ice is already showing signs of melting fast. I’ll keep with my 4.5 million sq. km. forecast for now…but then again, we’re talking about the weather, not the climate.

  8. This can be seen in North Pole webcams which show the ice frozen solid.

    Think a mini-sub can fit in the frozen pond?

  9. Thanks Steve,
    Assuming the information (following links) are accurate, there appear to be research stations within many of the black out areas you listed. If they’re still active, isn’t their data included in global temp etc.?

    Arctic Research Stations

    http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/major-research-stations-in-the-arctic

    ANTARCTICA RESEARCH STATIONS

    http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/stations/index.shtml

    South Pole

    http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/stations/southpole.shtml

  10. When I look at http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php , are there “reliable” (non-model generated) data concerning the range of the cycle over the latest inter-glacial period?

    (Say 10,000 years so that we don’t use the Younger Dryas to “inflate” the values.)

    I would imagine that this decade’s spread is quite small when compared to millennial results….

  11. Steve, I’m a bit surprised at your comment on the NWP. From the AMSR-E and MODIS imagery, the NWP has significantly less sea ice than it did in any of the 2007-2009 years when it opened. During 2007-2009, it didn’t open until the end of August.
    Also, it should be noted that the ice edge is moving past the 4+ year old ice that was advected into the Beaufort and Chukchi seas this winter.
    Forecast from the Canadian weather service calls for high pressure over the Canada Basin with low pressure over Eurasia. This will foster more offshore wind from Siberia, so ice loss in the E. Siberian Sea will likely continue to accelerate during the next week.
    Finally, there has been persistence of low ice concentrations from AMSR-E in the interior of the icepack, confirmed in MODIS data as open water areas. I suggest linking to the AMSR-E and MODIS imagery more often in your postings since they give a higher resolution on the state of the ice pack than the SSM/I data does.

  12. hey sTv,
    That first NSIDC graph. Is that dated 07/26/2010? Or maybe 07/28/2010? Good going, mate! Can you tell me how my investments will be doing next month? Dying to know.
    I’m so happy to see that really good science, done by really good scientists, published on really good blogs, avoiding that silly “peer-review” process with all its political innuendo, is what’s keeping the denial machine alive. Good on yer, mate!

    It’s also nice to see Dr. Christy, so highly respected, publish in E&E, rather than, say, in Nature or Science. Right bloody on, dude!

    We’ll show those alarmists a thing or two about blog science! Shoot, anybody can blog! But can anybody blog science like you guys can? Heck, no! It would take a monumental amount of hypocrisy to be able to pull that off, and quite frankly, Lindzen, Christy, Spencer and you, sTv, just about cornered the market on that one.

    Speaking of free market, why hasn’t anybody grasped how well Greece is doing these days? They’re much better off than Argentina is, what with the loans to pay off interest on other loans and such.

    Let’s go free market!! Woot!!!

    -sTv

  13. Cryosphere Today showed two days ago that Arctic Basin ice is nearly identical to 20 years ago, but unfortunately their web site is down and I can’t generate any images.

    I’m assuming by 2 days ago that you mean July 23rd?

    According to CT on that date this year the ice area was 5.1075397Mm^2 whereas on the same date in 1990 it was 6.1955042Mm^2, that isn’t nearly identical!

  14. Any chance of fixing the Y-Axis label on the JAXA Jul 1-23 Ice Melt chart so it doesn’t inadvertently indicate trillions of square kilometers? No big deal. We all know what is meant. But still…

  15. “Average ice thickness continues to follow a track below 2006 and above 2009, hinting that my prediction of a 5.5 million km² minimum continues to be correct.” !!!!!

  16. This can be seen in North Pole webcams which show the ice frozen solid.

    Doesn’t look frozen solid to me, in fact the crack through the site which has been there since late May has started to really open up as well.

  17. Amino, I thought Trenberth was looking for heat, but in all the wrong places…

  18. Now, I suspect, we are seeing the beginning of the blog wars – the climate science community has clued in and they are beginning to battle back with the mediums and in the manner with which the skeptics have been for some time. I suspect Mr. Watts will not like this, may even feel aggrieved and assaulted (as do his friends on other blogsites such as Climate Skeptic), and his claims will be investigated (as Phil is doing above). In the end, I suspect Mr. Watts may find himself rather Breitbarted.

    REPLY:Blog wars have been going on since 2004 when the RC -vs- CA first started.

    Also FYI Steve Goddard wrote this post, and that is who “Phil.” is responding to. See you again on September 30th. – Anthony

  19. Steve,
    by comparing with the curves from last years, have you noticed a significant change in their progression? I think it is not due to sun high…

  20. “In most fields of science, data is considered an essential element of historical analysis. But climate science gets a pass, because it involves “saving the planet.”

    Filling in data using statistical fabrication – or whatever technique – that wasn’t actually observed is FRAUD. Nasa GISS is guilty of FRAUD and needs to be held accountable.

    They are also guilty of a second fraud, not reporting that they’ve used DATA FABRICATION on the actual images produced. The images need to say “CONTAINS FABRICATED DATA, DOES NOT REFLECT REALITY”. Truth in labeling laws must apply to scientific graphs and images.

    ALL papers based upon Nasa’s fraudulent and fabricated data are NULL AND VOID! They need to be found and marked as needing to be redone and corrected to reflect the actual observed data rather than made up fraudulent data.

    Now if I recall there is a paper by one of the infamous climategate antiheroes that claims that it is ok to fabricate data using statistics. At the moment I’ve not been able to find it (if someone knows which one I’m talking about please post a link to it below – thx). This paper needs to be rescinded as NULL AND VOID and BAD SCIENCE. ALL papers that reference it also need to be rescinded and redone or just tossed into the garbage paper pile where most ideas in science end up.

    Clearly a creeping acceptance of fabrication of data by the alleged scientists involved in the alleged scientific field of climate science has played a major role in the corruption of some of the key people involved and a corruption of their work. They might not even know it since it’s a creeping lowering of the standards of what is accepted as valid climate science over a period of a number of decades.

    Fraud in science must be stopped when it’s detected. Fabrication of data is unacceptable. Use of statistical games to fabricate data is unacceptable. Scientists need to be held to the highest possible standards to insure the integrity of the scientific work. Extreme claims (and all claims of doomsday are extreme) require extraordinary evidence, not substandard evidence with non-observed fabricated data pretending to be real data. The people that scientists who’s work influence the public deserve better.

  21. WUWT regular Vukcevik is heating the Artic up with his electromagnetics wands :-)
    However while one side heats up the other cools down:

  22. Zilla says:
    July 25, 2010 at 1:44 pm

    Now, I suspect, we are seeing the beginning of the blog wars

    Arguments of global warming are not new. This video clip is from 1990

  23. Re NWP
    http://ice-map.appspot.com for arctic 25th July seems to show a “clear” (water+moving ice floes) NWP for an ice hardened freighter. You’d be a fool to take a non-hardened vessel through though.

    Re the Ice Cam: Reviewing the sequence of images, you can see that a long polyna has opened across the background. However, a number of melt ponds have shrunk in size, or disappeared altogether after the recent snowfalls (which cover the camera lens at times) See at http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np.html

  24. Ian… says:
    July 25, 2010 at 1:54 pm
    sVt A.K.A. “Ex” Republican on another blog
    The “WOOT” gives you away

    Was the other blog for the educationally sub normal, since I for one found his post utterly incomprehensible gibberish.

  25. Julienne,

    My comment about the NWP was satire about the idea of it as a commercial route. The fact that a few people have managed to slip through (with great difficulty) in recent years during a one week window, doesn’t sound like a commercial opportunity to me.

  26. Is there a relationship between getting colder earlier in the Arctic and colder winters further south? Like Canada and the continental US?

  27. stevengoddard says:
    July 25, 2010 at 2:23 pm
    Julienne,

    My comment about the NWP was satire about the idea of it as a commercial route. The fact that a few people have managed to slip through (with great difficulty) in recent years during a one week window, doesn’t sound like a commercial opportunity to me.
    _______________
    It is possible that both the NWP and NEP will open up this year, if even for a week or two. If the trends of the past 10 years continue, there will be plenty of commercial opportunity opening up in the Arctic in the coming years, and this will undoubtedly cause some issues in their own right.

  28. Gorgeous. I hope that the mining companies (and states) that were expecting an ice-free Arctic are suing Al Gore.

  29. Ross Jackson says:
    July 25, 2010 at 2:13 pm
    Re NWP
    http://ice-map.appspot.com for arctic 25th July seems to show a “clear” (water+moving ice floes) NWP for an ice hardened freighter. You’d be a fool to take a non-hardened vessel through though.

    Most of the yachts that have sailed through there make it through in Aug/Sept, I can’t see there’ll be any problem with that this year. For example the two Royal Marines set sail from Inuvik on July 24th last year. Apparently they’re going to rejoin their boat in Gjoa Havn on the 11th Aug to complete their journey.

  30. Phil. says:
    July 25, 2010 at 1:18 pm
    This can be seen in North Pole webcams which show the ice frozen solid.

    Doesn’t look frozen solid to me, in fact the crack through the site which has been there since late May has started to really open up as well.

    ==================
    And, the lead in the ice is a significant occurence, how?
    Steve was talking about the temperature.
    Sky conditions, also, don’t seem to be favorable to ice melt in the link you provided.
    Of course, it’s just weather, and pack ice dynamics.

  31. Yes, the NW passage is almost open and should be within a few weeks. Same for NE passage. See This detailed map

  32. stevengoddard says:
    July 25, 2010 at 2:24 pm
    Phil

    Read my lips : “Arctic Basin”

    So the ice which doesn’t normally start to melt until August hasn’t started to melt yet just like in 1990 but as far as the rest of the ice is concerned this year is over a million square kilometers ahead!

  33. Wouldn’t hovercraft type vessels be suitable for traversing both open water and low lying ice? Are there too many jagged and pointy ice structures to make hovercrafting around the Arctic a possibility?

  34. roger says:
    July 25, 2010 at 2:23 pm

    Ian… says:
    July 25, 2010 at 1:54 pm
    sVt A.K.A. “Ex” Republican on another blog
    The “WOOT” gives you away

    Was the other blog for the educationally sub normal, since I for one found his post utterly incomprehensible gibberish.
    ————————————————–
    It is a political site that leans to the right. Thefoxnation.com

  35. NW Passage has opened several times in history. It is nothing noteworthy for it to open now. But I suppose if you want to make it look like the NW Passage opening is something alarming you’ll keep history out of the picture.

  36. Phil:

    “According to CT on that date this year the ice area was 5.1075397Mm^2 whereas on the same date in 1990 it was 6.1955042Mm^2, that isn’t nearly identical!”

    I would be very chary about comparing those two figures. In the 80’s and 90’s SSM/I saw a lot of ice in places where there wasn’t any. Just have a look at the Baltic, the White Sea and the Pechora coast (where there is positively never any ice in July, the Baltic is even bathable then).

  37. Phil,

    Do you see anything out of the ordinary happening in Arctic ice? The truth is it looks like nothing out of the ordinary is happening. But do you see something out of the ordinary?

  38. So much has been staked by both sides on the Arctic ice melt that September could be the STALINGRAD of the AGW controversy. Defeat for the warmists – in the form of continued year-on-year recovery 2007-2008-2009-2010, would establish a firm trend and culminate a long series of failed AGW predictions of Arctic ice death spiral. It will not be the end of the conflict – far from it – the Kursks, Prokhorovkas and Berlins will still lie ahead. But the tide will have turned.

  39. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    July 25, 2010 at 3:15 pm
    NW Passage has opened several times in history. It is nothing noteworthy for it to open now. But I suppose if you want to make it look like the NW Passage opening is something alarming you’ll keep history out of the picture.

    Prior to this decade you think it’s ‘opened several times’, off hand I can only think of a couple of times. If as I expect the passage opens again this year that will be 4 years in a row, that’s noteworthy!

  40. Phil. says: (all of them)

    Phil, isn’t temperature what this is all about? You know, the atmosphere is going to be hotter because of atmospheric CO2? Especially in the (sub-average to this date) Arctic and Antarctic? And how does GISS get a nice big red blob out of those temperatures anyway when DMI shows them come in below average pretty much all summer up until now?

  41. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=6&sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=0112&year1=1940&year2=2009&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=pol

    So if we choose a slightly different change detection time amount then suddenly the arctic has stations again. Most stations in the Arctic have been operating since the mid 1900s with some being early 1900s. So when he asks for from 1880 to 2010 then it will only include the areas with data extending back that far. To give the impression that GISS analysis does not use stations in the Arctic is disingenuous at best. Try showing different time intervals Goddard?

  42. Phil

    Will you please give proof that it has never been open 4 times in a row before?

    And are you certain it has been open 3 times in a row without icebreaker help?

  43. my favourite BBC man, Paul “whatever happened to global warming” Hudson:

    N.B. “as defined” by….

    21 July: BBC: Paul Hudson: Global temperatures: Set for a sharp fall?
    The El Nino which has helped to cause near record global heat so far this year is now history, as sea temperatures in equatorial regions of the Pacific continue to fall…
    Just how fast will be crucial in deciding whether 2010 will be hotter than the hottest year on record, which was set in 1998, as defined by the UK Hadley Centre, The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and UAH Satellite data….
    If history repeats itself, not only could 2011 be much cooler than 2010, but that cool bias could extend into 2012 too…

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/07/global-temperatures-set-for-a.shtml

    BBC: Paul Hudson: First half of 2010: Close to record warmth (UPDATED FRI 7th JULY)
    The last paragraph of my latest blog seems to have aroused interest so for clarification this may be of interest.
    I spoke to various people in climate science when I put together my article ‘global temperature predictions for 2010′. One prominent climate sceptic told me that there was no chance of 2010 being warmer globally than 1998 because of solar considerations. 1998, from a solar point of view, ‘was a coming together of many things’ he said, that would not be replicated possibly ‘for another 100 years’. He went on to admit that if 2010 was hotter than 1998, he may have to re-examine his theory that it was the sun that was the main driver of global temperatures..

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/07/first-half-of-2010-close-to-re.shtml

    WUWT gets plenty of mentions in the comments.

  44. Robert

    You must be new to this. The topic has been covered before. Seven Goddard did not bring up something new.

  45. It is possible that we will be hit by an asteroid next year. It is possible that we will enter an ice age next year.

    It is even possible that the US could win the World Cup in 2014. (On second thought, some things are too far fetched….)

  46. I followed the link to Joe Romm and looked at the comments in May.
    I rarely go there and reading the comments I’m reminded why.
    What nasty people they are! No style, no grace, accusations without even an attempt at proof.
    I can normally have a disagreement with people and part in a friendly manner. That would be impossible with that lot I’m sure.

  47. I would try to be careful about predicting the Northern Sea Route/ NE passage opening … at this point in 2007 it would’ve been just as tempting to say that, but of course you would’ve been wrong!

  48. Phil,

    Where is the crack you are talking about that “has started to really open up”?

    Those little melt ponds do look frozen.

  49. phlogiston says:
    July 25, 2010 at 3:20 pm
    So much has been staked by both sides on the Arctic ice melt that September could be the STALINGRAD of the AGW controversy.

    Well said, sir!

  50. Steve, sometimes it’s hard to follow exactly what you believe contributes to ice loss. In many of your previous postings you don’t believe air temperature has anything to do with ice loss in summer, but then in this posting you say the ice loss in the E. Siberian Sea is a result of warm temperatures, while at the same time continually arguing that air temperatures are colder than normal (with your link to the DMI reanalysis data). You say wind was the major factor in 2007, and yet the air temperatures were warmer in 2007 than this summer, especially in the E. Siberian Sea. Instead of constantly contradicting yourself, why not admit that there are many factors that work together to cause ice loss? You are not being close to comprehensive in any of your sea ice news postings, but selectively focus on items to try to make your point, while selectively ignoring others that would disprove the point you are trying to make (which is that the Arctic sea ice is not at all shrinking). The data do not lie. There has been no recovery to summer conditions seen 20 years ago. Trying to pretend that Arctic sea ice is not showing a strong decline in summer is a waste of everyone’s time.

  51. “On August 28th, Bear Grylls will set off to navigate the Northwest Passage in an infatable boat to publicise ‘global warming’. Do you think that he’ll make it?”

    Great Freudian slip there.

    He’ll probably need an infatable boat to provide extra insulation from the cold!

  52. Robert thanks for pointing that out! It is too bad that Steve purposefully tries to mislead his readers.

  53. phlogiston says:
    July 25, 2010 at 3:20 pm
    So much has been staked by both sides on the Arctic ice melt that September could be the STALINGRAD of the AGW controversy. Defeat for the warmists – in the form of continued year-on-year recovery 2007-2008-2009-2010, would establish a firm trend and culminate a long series of failed AGW predictions of Arctic ice death spiral. It will not be the end of the conflict – far from it – the Kursks, Prokhorovkas and Berlins will still lie ahead. But the tide will have turned…
    _________
    This is very funny. The summer Arctic Sea ice has been melting faster in the past few years then GCM’s projected it would based on AGW, and so if, and this is a huge IF, but if it somehow returns to melting as fast as GCM’s said it should based on AGW (i.e. disappearing by 2070 to 2100), then this somehow disproves the AGW hypothesis. Now, that’s funny stuff…

    As it stands, it doesn’t look like it will return to the earlier predicted rate of decline by AGW models, so more likely we’re still looking at an ice free summer Arctic by 2030 at the latest.

  54. A quote below from the captain of a boat that had just finished the NW passage in 2009. He states he was one 9 boats completing the passage during the summer season of 2009 out of 10 attempting it. This was also reported in Boat US magazine. In 2007 4 boats made it in a single season. These numbers for passages in a single season are unprecedented.

    “Monday, September 14, 2009
    Back from the Ice

    Having returned from the “Summer of Cold” on the Northwest Passage, I am in the process of editing my journal, sorting the thousands of photographs and attempting to put the trip into perspective. I will be adding the distillation of all of it to this blog over the next weeks. Stay tuned!

    This year all but one of the ten vessels attempting the Passage completed their goal. No vessels were damaged, no crew members injured, no “Mayday” calls were made and no one “found themselves passengers after the coast guard had to pluck them off boats hopelessly stranded in ice” as was recently reported in an article by the Canadian Press.

    The crew of the vessel that did not complete the trip this year will return next year to continue the journey. That they are not completing the trip this year is the result of, not drama, but schedule delays.

    Much was made in the blogosphere of the ice encountered by the vessels in 2009. “[That several vessels were at times beset by ice] is a sure sign that climate change is not occurring, proving global warming is a hoax” or “several boats were not properly prepared for the ice.” That kind of thing.

    What is remarkable is that ordinary ocean going pleasurecraft can now make the Northwest Passage in a single season. Sure it’s a bit dangerous! The ice is still there. To sail the Passage is still a calculated risk. But with planning and care it can now be done.

    And that is the point.

    It was not too long ago that the only “properly prepared” vessel for the Northwest Passage was an icebreaker! It’s only in the last few years that pleasurecraft, even minimally crewed, fiberglass, unsponsored boats-without-a-cause like Fiona have been able to complete the trip.

    I will leave it to scientists to supply the facts, and the debaters to hash out, why that is possible.

    [For more news of Fiona’s successful 2009 completion of the Northwest Passage, including the latest position on its continued trip around North America, visit Eric Forsyth’s site at http://www.yachtfiona.com

  55. Phil. says:
    July 25, 2010 at 3:29 pm
    Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    July 25, 2010 at 3:15 pm
    NW Passage has opened several times in history. It is nothing noteworthy for it to open now. But I suppose if you want to make it look like the NW Passage opening is something alarming you’ll keep history out of the picture.

    Prior to this decade you think it’s ‘opened several times’, off hand I can only think of a couple of times. If as I expect the passage opens again this year that will be 4 years in a row, that’s noteworthy!
    ===========
    The thing about the Northwest Passage, is that it can close just as fast as it opened, depending on the wind.
    Very few have tried to navigate it, without a sat-phone.

  56. JJB says:

    “nstead of constantly contradicting yourself, why not admit that there are many factors that work together to cause ice loss? You are not being close to comprehensive in any of your sea ice news postings, but selectively focus on items to try to make your point, while selectively ignoring others that would disprove the point you are trying to make (which is that the Arctic sea ice is not at all shrinking). The data do not lie. There has been no recovery to summer conditions seen 20 years ago. Trying to pretend that Arctic sea ice is not showing a strong decline in summer is a waste of everyone’s time…”

    ________

    Well said, and it should also be pointed out that Steve is really not talking about climate but weather, and so when he posts temps, and dates for break up of Pt. Barrow shore-fast ice, and pic of melt ponds, etc. this is all an Arctic weather update. No different really than talking about snow if Florida or an east coast heat wave. We all can look at the longer term charts for ourselves and take note of the longer term decline and the fact that the Arctic sea ice has not shown a positive anomaly since 2004.

  57. Steve,

    I’d noticed how different the DMI 30% ice extent graph has started to look more and more different from the other 15% graphs. I guess as you have been saying for some time the central arctic ice is looking healthier than in recent years due to this years favourable weather and is withstanding the melt while the pheripery continues to follow the trend seen in recent decades.

    Again congrats on getting this years forecasy spot on (so far) and for sticking it up the doom-sayers but I’d still love a convincing argument that says the long term trend isn’t the important thing here.

    A quick question on the DMI data. Surely that data set can only use the same (or similar) sparse data records to generate it’s 80N graph? These are the only records humanity has. Why not ctitises DMI for doing pretty much the same as GISS? From my understanding if you we’re to plot DMI data in the form of trends it would show similar to GISS. As you point out the summers are relatively consistent through the arctic, this is because energy is going into melting ice rather than warming the air. The GISS trend is in the non-summer seasons and this would be matched by a similar DMI plot if one existed.

  58. stevengoddard says:
    July 25, 2010 at 2:28 pm
    DaveH

    ‘Of course he will make it. With an inflatable raft, he can portage around or over the ice.’

    I don’t think the 3 x 300HP Mercury’s are as portable as the ‘inflatable raft’!!

    I think they’ll be lucky not to kill themselves. They are planning to go at very high speed – too fast to see ‘growlers’.

  59. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    July 25, 2010 at 4:11 pm
    Phil,

    Where is the crack you are talking about that “has started to really open up”?
    About halfway up this image, it goes all the way across, it first became noticeable about May 26th.

    Here it is about 36 hrs ago:

    and here about a week before:

  60. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    July 25, 2010 at 3:58 pm
    Phil

    Will you please give proof that it has never been open 4 times in a row before?

    And are you certain it has been open 3 times in a row without icebreaker help?

    Yes 2007, 2008 and 2009.

  61. “Peru Government Declares Cold Wave Emergency in 16 Regions”

    Thanks Arn.

    So where is all the noise about this cold like there was noise about heat in the US?

  62. 2010 has nearly caught up to 2009 now. Only a measly 40k sq km behind, and 2009 will fall below 2010 by the end of today if today’s melt is below 60k.

  63. Those ponds at the North Pole are frozen. But there has been open water there several times. And it is highly likely there was less ice at the Arctic (maybe even none in summers) during the Medieval Warm Period. Have a look at this video:

  64. John from CA says:
    July 25, 2010 at 12:51 pm

    Thanks Steve,
    Assuming the information (following links) are accurate, there appear to be research stations within many of the black out areas you listed. If they’re still active, isn’t their data included in global temp etc.?….
    ______________________________________________
    You forgot about station drop out. The norther stations and the mountain stations (like in my home state) were dropped.

    Graph of temp and station drop out: http://diggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/canadadt.png

  65. Dave F says:
    July 25, 2010 at 3:50 pm
    Phil. says: (all of them)

    Phil, isn’t temperature what this is all about? You know, the atmosphere is going to be hotter because of atmospheric CO2? Especially in the (sub-average to this date) Arctic and Antarctic? And how does GISS get a nice big red blob out of those temperatures anyway when DMI shows them come in below average pretty much all summer up until now?

    Air in the close vicinity of melting sea ice would be expected to stay close to 0ºC.
    Regarding temperature, according to Spencer’s AQUA Ch 5 every day in July as been as hot or hotter than any other days since 1979 (to within the width of the line). So it would be surprising if July 2010 doesn’t turn out to be the hottest month of the satellite record.

  66. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    July 25, 2010 at 5:15 pm
    Those ponds at the North Pole are frozen. But there has been open water there several times.

    There’s open water there now look at the polynya in the photo!

  67. R. Gates says:
    July 25, 2010 at 4:44 pm
    =================
    Take a breath, we’re all looking at the same data.
    Damn man, you go from Alaska to Florida, and then breathlessly to the Arctic.
    All the signs (solar,oceans), point to cooling. The dark side is calling :)

  68. R. Gates says:
    July 25, 2010 at 4:35 pm
    This is very funny. The summer Arctic Sea ice has been melting faster in the past few years then GCM’s projected it would based on AGW
    ————————————
    then this somehow disproves the AGW hypothesis
    ============================================================

    It certainly disproves something.
    If the proof of AGW is proved by those computer games, and the computer games don’t get it right, in either direction.
    Then the computer games are not accurate and prove nothing.

    You would think after 50 years they might be a little closer.

  69. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    July 25, 2010 at 5:15 pm
    Those ponds at the North Pole are frozen. But there has been open water there several times. And it is highly likely there was less ice at the Arctic
    ======================================================

    AAM, I think it’s highly likely that there was a lot less ice when trees were growing there. ;-)

  70. PJB says:
    July 25, 2010 at 12:54 pm

    When I look at http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php , are there “reliable” (non-model generated) data concerning the range of the cycle over the latest inter-glacial period?

    (Say 10,000 years so that we don’t use the Younger Dryas to “inflate” the values.)

    I would imagine that this decade’s spread is quite small when compared to millennial results….
    _______________________________________________
    Here is the stuff I have bookmarked on that subject (no order)

    Greenland last 10,000 years

    Barents sea temperatures 1900-2010

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

    The Physical Evidence of Earth’s Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle

    http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st279/

    Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7065/abs/nature04121.html

    http://www2.ucar.edu/news/bering-strait-influenced-ice-age-climate-patterns-worldwide

    Temperatures from greenland Ice core

    http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-188-post-3123.html#pid3123

    Oldest temperature records including St Petersburg Russia

    Paleo temp records

    http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

    http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?cid=3842&pid=12455&tid=282

    2000 years of proxy temperature data (not trees)

    http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/loehle-temperature-reconstruction/image/image_view_fullscreen

    1660-2009 Little Ice age thermometers – one is in the Arctic

    http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/

    Hope that helps

  71. R. Gates says:
    July 25, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    This is very funny. The summer Arctic Sea ice has been melting faster in the past few years then GCM’s projected it would based on AGW, and so if, and this is a huge IF, but if it somehow returns to melting as fast as GCM’s said it should based on AGW (i.e. disappearing by 2070 to 2100), then this somehow disproves the AGW hypothesis. Now, that’s funny stuff…
    ———————————————————————————
    The “increased” melting rate does not disprove the AGW theory. But it does point out the unreliability of the results of the GCM’s. It shows that the natural processes are not well modeled.

  72. R. Gates, you are completely right that Steve is focusing on weather rather than climate. I should have caught on sooner that’s what he’s doing here, and trying to pass it off as climate. Looking at the many open water areas that have developed the last couple of weeks under the central Arctic low sea level pressure, and now the upcoming shift back towards a more dipole pattern, I bet the September 2010 ice extent will drop far below his predicted 5.5 million sq-km.

  73. Steve, thanks for the movie. I am curious though why Greenland stations are not included in the GISS fields. I know they are still recording data. Is the reason you use DMI because they use more Arctic stations than GISS?

  74. Billy Liar says:
    July 25, 2010 at 5:09 pm
    Rob Vermeulen says:
    July 25, 2010 at 2:40 pm
    ‘Yes, the NW passage is almost open and should be within a few weeks. Same for NE passage. See This detailed map

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png‘

    Not very detailed map! I think you need this one:

    where you will see that the NWP is far from open; there is a large gray area of fast ice.

    You need to look a little further north.

    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?T102060150

  75. #
    #
    DaveH says:
    July 25, 2010 at 2:09 pm

    On August 28th, Bear Grylls will set off to navigate the Northwest Passage in an infatable boat to publicise ‘global warming’. Do you think that he’ll make it?

    http://www.fcpnorthwestpassage.com/journey/route–timeline

    ________________________________________________________________
    Perhaps he will win the Darwin Award.

    Nature usually punishes stupidity with death.

  76. Summer 2030: Artic ice still there, adjust AGW model, predicts summer 2040.

    Summer 2040: Artic ice still there, adjust AGW model, predicts summer 2050.

    Summer 2050: Artic ice increases! Nuts!

    Retired, time to pass to next public grant recipient with instructions to claim all failures are just “weather”.

  77. Robert,

    1880 is the year that the data started showing the “global temperature”, according to GISS

    Do you think it is unreasonable to examine their entire dataset, or do you prefer to cherry pick starting 60 years later?

  78. JJB, congrats for looking at some weather factors and starting a prediction. Care to give us a guess at a number? R Gates, take note of that analysis. There are both short and long term weather processes at work here, and your linear extrapolation of no ice in 2030 considers none of that, and has no scientific value.

  79. JJB

    Someone is deceiving you – but it isn’t me.

    DMI uses 30% concentration ice, which is a much better indicator of ice health than the 15% which everyone else uses.

  80. R. Gates says:
    July 25, 2010 at 2:33 pm
    “It is possible that both the NWP and NEP will open up this year, if even for a week or two. If the trends of the past 10 years continue, there will be plenty of commercial opportunity opening up in the Arctic in the coming years, and this will undoubtedly cause some issues in their own right.”
    _______________________________________________________

    Good Grief! The Russians have been regularly navigating the North East Passage for close to 100 years. Explorers have been going through for about 450 years. What is new about this? Just Google it, lots of references.

  81. Wayne Delbeke says:
    July 25, 2010 at 6:54 pm
    R. Gates says:
    July 25, 2010 at 2:33 pm
    “It is possible that both the NWP and NEP will open up this year, if even for a week or two. If the trends of the past 10 years continue, there will be plenty of commercial opportunity opening up in the Arctic in the coming years, and this will undoubtedly cause some issues in their own right.”
    _______________________________________________________

    Good Grief! The Russians have been regularly navigating the North East Passage for close to 100 years. Explorers have been going through for about 450 years. What is new about this? Just Google it, lots of references.

    _______
    Having both the NWP and NEP open in the same year is historically quite rare. In fact, I think it happened for the first time only 2 years ago in 2008…this was my point. The fact that the Russians can break through the remaining thin ice in the summer and get passage through isn’t the point. I’m talking about open water.

  82. Brooks says:
    July 25, 2010 at 4:42 pm
    A quote below from the captain of a boat that had just finished the NW passage in 2009. He states he was one 9 boats completing the passage during the summer season of 2009 out of 10 attempting it. This was also reported in Boat US magazine. In 2007 4 boats made it in a single season. These numbers for passages in a single season are unprecedented. ”

    How many attempts were made in 2007. Its unsurprising given the amount of publicity the Arctic is receiving that there are more attempts which are probably better prepared from a navigational viewpoint than in previous years.

    Really doesnt prove a thing.

    Another thought occurred with regards the rate of ice melt for multi year ice vs 1st year ice. If we are seeing a recovery, logically initially we’ll see more 1st year ice. More first year ice means more ice to lose early in the season as that 1st year ice is always the first to go.

    This could be why for the past few years we’ve seen higher levels of melt early in the season but then a slow down as we get into late July/August and the multi-year ice which has increased a little over the previous season.

  83. I got a chuckle out of R Gates stating that the increase was a decrease, because the current increases were only “getting back” to the decrease which models predicted.

    I suppose I’m having trouble keeping track of all the Alarmist predictions. I can only deal with them one at a time. The first ones to deal with are the really dire ones, which stated the arctic sea ice may-might-could be gone this summer.

    It looks like that one is dealt with.

    R Gates is wise to retreat to a safer prediction of an ice-free arctic summer in 2030.

    I hope R Gates sticks with us to the bitter end, for I like seeing how his mind justifies evidence that would deeply depress most Alarmists. I can’t help but like a man who remains optimistic and isn’t quick to lose faith, even if he’s wrong.

    If you are listening, Mr. Gates, I would be interested in hearing how you justify GISS portraying the arctic as a red blob, even as DMI shows temperatures below normal.

    Do you find the GISS maps comforting? Are they a cozy refuge, where Alarmists can retreat and lick their wounds? And do you deem DMI a bunch of Big Oil liars?

  84. steveW says:
    July 25, 2010 at 5:45 pm
    R. Gates says:
    July 25, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    This is very funny. The summer Arctic Sea ice has been melting faster in the past few years then GCM’s projected it would based on AGW, and so if, and this is a huge IF, but if it somehow returns to melting as fast as GCM’s said it should based on AGW (i.e. disappearing by 2070 to 2100), then this somehow disproves the AGW hypothesis. Now, that’s funny stuff…
    ———————————————————————————
    The “increased” melting rate does not disprove the AGW theory. But it does point out the unreliability of the results of the GCM’s. It shows that the natural processes are not well modeled.

    ___________
    Indeed, and those natural processes include feedback loops, both positive and negative. With continued forcing from CO2, it is possible that tipping points, quite natural and deterministic but unpredictable shifts in Arctic Sea ice behavior, could be reached where the system seeks a new equilibrium point. These are indeed the great unknowns. GCM’s cannot possibly predict tipping points as the Arctic system is a chaotic and complex system.

  85. Billy Liar says:
    July 25, 2010 at 5:09 pm

    Hmm, your map is showing areas BELOW where most people consider the NWP;

    Billy Liar says:
    July 25, 2010 at 5:09 pm
    Rob Vermeulen says:
    July 25, 2010 at 2:40 pm
    ‘Yes, the NW passage is almost open and should be within a few weeks. Same for NE passage. See This detailed map

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png‘

    Not very detailed map! I think you need this one:

    The last fast ice in this section broke up about two weeks ago.

    where you will see that the NWP is far from open; there is a large gray area of fast ice.

  86. Oops, bad cut and paste above, here’s the NWP via MODIS imagery;

    The last fast ice in this section broke up about two weeks ago.

  87. JJB says:
    July 25, 2010 at 5:46 pm
    R. Gates, you are completely right that Steve is focusing on weather rather than climate. I should have caught on sooner that’s what he’s doing here, and trying to pass it off as climate. Looking at the many open water areas that have developed the last couple of weeks under the central Arctic low sea level pressure, and now the upcoming shift back towards a more dipole pattern, I bet the September 2010 ice extent will drop far below his predicted 5.5 million sq-km.

    __________
    I’m not so sure Steve is trying to pass anything off. He’s gives an excellent weekly analysis of the Arctic Sea ice conditions and I credit him for the time he takes to look at every angle, crack, and melt pool. But he’ll be the first to admit that one season does not a climate make. No proof of anything will come out of this season, no matter what happens, as we certainly aren’t seeing any great recovery. I personally am looking at the next few years, between now and 2015 as being watershed years for the Arctic, and am forecasting a new record low by 2015 of around 2.5 million sq. km. We’ve just passed through the longest and deepest solar minimum in a century since the Arctic sea ice record minimum in 2007, and just as with global temps flattening during that period, so too, the Arctic Sea ice only made an essentially sideways move in 2008 and 2009. But the next solar max is out in 2013 and my guess is we’ll have a good El Nino in 2012-2013 as well, and this will cause global temps to hit record highs. The last 12 months have been the warmest globally. It is these longer term natural fluctuations riding on top of the overall upward trend in temperatures in the last 30 years that can begin to hint at the bigger climate picture.

    Generally though, the most important graph (that we know the data is valid) to look at Arctic Sea ice is this one:

  88. Steve, 15% is actually a good indicator of the REAL ice edge. That is why institutions use it. Certainly for navigational purposes, your 30% would be of no value.

    What I am wondering, and what you didn’t yet answer, is what is the station coverage of your beloved graph of temperatures above 80N. Your plot is based on reanalysis data, but it assimilates station data into the numerical model. You constantly rip on the GISS data set, yet you rely on a numerical model for your 80N and above temperature plot.

  89. Wayne Delbeke says:
    “Good Grief! The Russians have been regularly navigating the North East Passage for close to 100 years. Explorers have been going through for about 450 years. What is new about this? Just Google it, lots of references.:”

    I did as you suggested and immediately found this article from Sept 2009:

    http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1924410,00.html

    Excerpt: “Shunning conventional shipping routes between Asia and Europe in what appears to be the first commercial navigation via the treacherous Arctic sea-lane, Beluga, the shipping company behind the voyage, said in a statement that “we are all very proud” to have “successfully transited the legendary Northeast Passage.

    Plenty have tried. For centuries, sailors have searched for a shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans through the icy waters off Russia’s northern coast.”

  90. Eric, my prediction is 4.6 million sq-km +/- 0.1 million sq-km. This is based on an assessment of the ice concentrations/ice area, typical rates of ice loss for July and August, the distribution of the ice age and the summer circulation pattern.

  91. R. Gates says:
    July 25, 2010 at 7:16 pm
    GCM’s cannot possibly predict tipping points as the Arctic system is a chaotic and complex system.
    ===========================================================

    Would you know a tipping point if one slapped you?
    The computer games certainly do not.
    Tipping points is just another scare tactic meant to scare the feeble minded.

    Gates, the computer games have not been right about anything, except to say that temps will go up. That’s a pretty good high school guess, don’t you think?

    There’s no hot spot in the tropics, temps have not behaved the way the computer games said they had to, and it’s a travesty.

    You said so yourself, those computer games are worthless:

    “”R. Gates says:
    This is very funny. The summer Arctic Sea ice has been melting faster in the past few years then GCM’s projected it would based on AGW””

  92. R. Gates, while Steve is giving a blow-by-blow account, it is biased and he purposefully doesn’t include a lot of information that would counter what outcome he would like to see happen. A true blow- by-blow account would be unbiased and include all relevant data/studies/links known to influence the ice cover.

  93. R. Gates says:
    July 25, 2010 at 7:16 pm

    Indeed, and those natural processes include feedback loops, both positive and negative. With continued forcing from CO2, it is possible that tipping points, quite natural and deterministic but unpredictable shifts in Arctic Sea ice behavior, could be reached where the system seeks a new equilibrium point. These are indeed the great unknowns. GCM’s cannot possibly predict tipping points as the Arctic system is a chaotic and complex system.
    ———————————————————————————
    If one can not model the natural processes correctly then how can one say anything about tipping points? The idea of a tipping point based on CO2 and “various and sundry” feedback loops is pure speculation.

  94. Caleb says:
    July 25, 2010 at 7:15 pm
    I got a chuckle out of R Gates stating that the increase was a decrease, because the current increases were only “getting back” to the decrease which models predicted.

    I suppose I’m having trouble keeping track of all the Alarmist predictions. I can only deal with them one at a time. The first ones to deal with are the really dire ones, which stated the arctic sea ice may-might-could be gone this summer.

    It looks like that one is dealt with.

    R Gates is wise to retreat to a safer prediction of an ice-free arctic summer in 2030.

    I hope R Gates sticks with us to the bitter end, for I like seeing how his mind justifies evidence that would deeply depress most Alarmists. I can’t help but like a man who remains optimistic and isn’t quick to lose faith, even if he’s wrong.

    If you are listening, Mr. Gates, I would be interested in hearing how you justify GISS portraying the arctic as a red blob, even as DMI shows temperatures below normal.

    Do you find the GISS maps comforting? Are they a cozy refuge, where Alarmists can retreat and lick their wounds? And do you deem DMI a bunch of Big Oil liars?

    __________
    The general trends of 20th and 21st century warming, factoring in the natural oscillations from solar cycles, ENSO, etc. are in line with GCM’s prediction of the effects of increased CO2– which has increased 40% since the 1700’s. My strong “hunch” is that had we not had the long and deep solar minimum, where total solar irradiance fell to very low levels and GCR’s rose to very high levels, that the flattening of both the global temps would not have happened to the same degree. But the solar minimum is passed us now, and the last 12 months have been the warmest 12 months period on record. AGW skeptics would like to chalk this all up to the El Nino we had last year, but that is a short term fluctuation riding on top of a longer term rise in temps.

    I will be here to the “bitter end” and then some and I’ve got no reason to abandon my prediction of 4.5 million sq. km. minimum as there is a lot of melt to be done. But as Steve has pointed out, quite accurately so many times, the behavior of sea ice in any one season is a matter of weather to a large extent. The rapid melt up to the end of June shows how vulnerable the sea ice is, and any talk of a recovery could only come after years of the minimum rising to 6.0, then 7.0 and up to 8.0 million sq. km., back to its longer term average minimum. A simple glance at this chart shows why this is true:

  95. steveW says:
    July 25, 2010 at 7:49 pm
    R. Gates says:
    July 25, 2010 at 7:16 pm

    Indeed, and those natural processes include feedback loops, both positive and negative. With continued forcing from CO2, it is possible that tipping points, quite natural and deterministic but unpredictable shifts in Arctic Sea ice behavior, could be reached where the system seeks a new equilibrium point. These are indeed the great unknowns. GCM’s cannot possibly predict tipping points as the Arctic system is a chaotic and complex system.
    ———————————————————————————
    If one can not model the natural processes correctly then how can one say anything about tipping points? The idea of a tipping point based on CO2 and “various and sundry” feedback loops is pure speculation.

    ________
    In regards to chaotic systems, try this experiment. Put a pot of cold water on a hot burner and turn the heat to high. Immediately when the water is cold write down where you think the first bubble will form before boiling starts. Good luck with that. Yet you can predict that the water will boil eventually, and if you knew the exact temperature of the burner, the exact temp of he water when you started, the exact purity of the water, the exact atmospheric pressure, and the exact thermodynamic properties of the pan, etc. you could predict reasonably well when the water would start to boil. The formation of any single bubble is chaotic yet deterministic (as all chaotic but non-random systems are) and this is akin to predicting the weather. The knowledge that the pot will eventually boil is akin to knowing the climate. We still don’t know all the variables and feedbacks that would be similar to the thermodynamic properties of the pot or the purity of the water, but I think the GCM’s have enough in them to know enough to know the general direction, if not the exact point where the water starts to boil. But indeed, there may be chaotic “bubbles” that form in unpredictable places along the way.

  96. latitude says:
    July 25, 2010 at 7:44 pm

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

    Would you know a tipping point if one slapped you?

    You only know them when they’re actually happening. If you’ve been in an earthquake you know exactly what I’m talking about. Tipping points are unpredictable, but deterministic. There will be a next big earthquake that rocks LA someday, but no one can predict the exact moment, yet the forces that will cause it are even now working toward that exact outcome.

    “Tipping points is just another scare tactic meant to scare the feeble minded.”

    Tipping points are real events and among the most important in nature. You would do well to pick up a book on chaos theory. Human life, and all life only exists because of tipping points during our development.

  97. To compare navagating the NWP in modern boats with fast engines,gps,radar,satmaps and all aspects of modern nav equipment is just stupid.I think the NWP must have been wide open 100yrs.ago to tack a heavely laden squarerigged sailing ship through.

  98. Meanwhile, the Jaxa data for 26th July is out and the ice extent at 7.23 million sq km is now ahead of 2009 which was 7.18 million sq km at 26th July.

    It will be interesting to see how the remainder of the melt season progresses. The rate of loss during July has been well below that of any other season that JAXA has measured. Although we’ve seen an increase over the past week it has been interlaced with days of less ice loss.

    2006 saw the lowest rate of ice loss from late July onwards for previous seasons. It would not surprise me to see 2010 come in even lower which should put the September minimum in the 5.6-6.0 million sq km range. I would be very surprised to see a result over 6 million though.

  99. Regarding the fellows sailing the Northwest Passage:

    I spent a lot of my youth by the sea, and went for some sails that make me shudder to recall, back when I didn’t know better. I accomplished some amazing things, simply because I was naive. If I could have had any idea of the risks I was taking, I’d’ve stayed safe at home.

    Now I’m a grizzled survivor, quite content to stay safe at home, and bore people to tears by recounting adventures I experienced when I was young. However there is a part of me that wishes I still was a complete idiot, and could go on the adventures only the naive undertake.

    It is for this reason I was gratified to closely watch, via the web, the progress of the various boats that made the Northwest Passage last year. In my humble opinion, the good angel who watched over me, when I sailed as a teenager, also watched over them. Quite a number of the craft went through touch-and-go situations, where the vague idea of “60% extent ice” became the abrupt and vivid reality of a huge mass of grinding ice, shifting on the whims of the wind from Asia towards North America, threatening to trap and crunch their ships. The good angel shifted the ice back towards Asia, at the last minute, (after giving them a good scare to remind them who was really in charge.)

    Now, as I understand it, some numbskull, safe back at home, is saying it “proves Global Warming is occurring” that “pleasure craft” can so easily “make the passage.”

    First, it wasn’t easy. Second, they had all sorts of satellite information that Vikings lacked. Third, they were lucky. Lastly, it doesn’t prove Global Warming is happening.

    There is plenty of evidence, if you bother to look, which suggests the Arctic waters can open, and then suddenly shut, and that Arctic waters have done so many times in the recent and not-so-recent past. In fact, the Franklin expedition set out (in part) because there were reports the arctic was thawing, but the Franklin Expedition had the misfortune to set out after the thaw was over.

    The same thing could happen again, as history repeats itself. If you encourage pleasure craft to make the Northwest Passage, you may wind up with a bunch of mini-Franklins.

    Fortunately, it won’t be teenagers who risk death. Instead it will be a bunch of old men of my age who wish they were teenagers. Unlike me, and teenagers, they have millions of dollars and can afford pleasure craft. However their lives are so empty and devoid of meaning, despite all their hard-earned wealth, that they attempt an absurd stunt and mouth inane platitudes about Global Warming, seeking the meaning they remember they had as teenagers, but have lost.

    After all, if you had several million dollars, and really did care for “humanity,” would you spend your millions on a “pleasure craft” and sail the Northwest Passage? Or would you spend it on people with very real needs, in your own home town?

  100. 2010 passes 2009. Indeed the ice melt of today was less then 60k sq km So 2010 now has more ice than 2009. Of all the talk of death spirals, 2010 now needs a greater melt then 2009 had from this point forward to go lower.

  101. Hello Steve Goddard
    I really got a very useful information of Sea Ice News #15. specially that sea ice melt graph it’s really useful..and i also like your “Faster than everyplace else” article.thanks for shearing such a good information.

  102. To R. Gates,

    Thank you for responding.

    I appreciate your whole-hearted sincerity. The next six months will give the two of us some mind-boggling data to think about, I suspect, especially as the warm AMO is so out of sync with other cooling trends.

    I’m still curious: What do you make of the huge difference between the GISS data about the North Pole and the DMI data?

    It’s difficult to debate when the data disagrees.

  103. GISS has a secret weapon for taking Arctic Temperatures:
    It’s called an Anomalymometer.
    It contains a singularity which is HOT.

  104. gman says:
    July 25, 2010 at 8:23 pm
    To compare navagating the NWP in modern boats with fast engines,gps,radar,satmaps and all aspects of modern nav equipment is just stupid.I think the NWP must have been wide open 100yrs.ago to tack a heavely laden squarerigged sailing ship through.

    Most of the boats going through over the last few years have been yachts not powerboats. If by 100 years ago you’re thinking of Amundsen, his ship the Gjoa was certainly not a squarerigged sailing ship! This yacht was a converted herring boat and had a 13 HP ‘petroleum’ engine and to quote Amundsen: “I may say that our successful negotiation of the North West Passage was very largely due to our excellent little engine.” I have Amundsen’s account of that voyage and the NWP was anything but wide open!

  105. JJB says:
    July 25, 2010 at 5:46 pm

    I bet the September 2010 ice extent will drop far below his predicted 5.5 million sq-km.

    Hey, it’s your lucky day! There is a place taking bets!!!!

    But if you are wrong will you come back to this blog and say so?

  106. Phil,

    You did not provide proof that the NW Passage has never been open 4 years in succession before. So you cannot claim this is unprecedented.

  107. Caleb says:
    July 25, 2010 at 8:42 pm
    =========================
    Caleb, you are an extremely smart, evolved individual.

    Always appreciate your posts…and your words here…are definitely no exception.

    I repeat these words…all worth repeating:
    =======================
    Caleb’s words:

    “Fortunately, it won’t be teenagers who risk death. Instead it will be a bunch of old men of my age who wish they were teenagers. Unlike me, and teenagers, they have millions of dollars and can afford pleasure craft. However their lives are so empty and devoid of meaning, despite all their hard-earned wealth, that they attempt an absurd stunt and mouth inane platitudes about Global Warming, seeking the meaning they remember they had as teenagers, but have lost.”

    “After all, if you had several million dollars, and really did care for “humanity,” would you spend your millions on a “pleasure craft” and sail the Northwest Passage? Or would you spend it on people with very real needs, in your own home town?”

  108. R. Gates says:
    July 25, 2010 at 8:20 pm

    “You would do well to pick up a book on chaos theory.”

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

    And you would do most well to just pick up a few books of meteorology and physics, not to mention a book or two on logical fallacies, and just basically NOT set forth your opinion….for a very VERY long while.

    Sort of like a monk taking a vow of silence.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  109. tty says:
    July 25, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    Phil:

    “According to CT on that date this year the ice area was 5.1075397Mm^2 whereas on the same date in 1990 it was 6.1955042Mm^2, that isn’t nearly identical!”

    I would be very chary about comparing those two figures. In the 80′s and 90′s SSM/I saw a lot of ice in places where there wasn’t any. Just have a look at the Baltic, the White Sea and the Pechora coast (where there is positively never any ice in July, the Baltic is even bathable then).

    To tty: I’m curious about the point you make above. Are you saying that the satellite interpretations of ice extent were biased upward in the 80’s and 90’s? And if so, you’re basing this on your knowledge of certain areas being ice-free that are shown to be counted as part of the calculated ice extent at the time?

    The reason I’m asking is that I asked a while back if the AMSRE data could have been biased downward compared to pre-2002 ice extent figures. Yours is the first comment I’ve seen that implies that might be the case (at least in the one instance you discussed above.)

  110. Arctic ice is not supposed to be an important topic. Sooooo, why do these Arctic ice posts get so much attention?

    Just askin……

  111. R. Gates:

    You always leave out the rest of the story.
    Having passed through Deep Solar Minimum, the rest of it, so far, is the Solar Doldrums. No breakout ramps, if you are going to pin the blame on Solar Activity, which according to SIDC, is low to very low.
    The Arctic is only 1/2 the poles on the Earth. The Antarctic tells the rest of the Global Sea Ice story. No cherry picking one pole to support unprecedented warming.
    And as for your tipping points: where’s the physics that have pinpointed these hystereses?
    Simulations run on computers are not physics, and neither are extrapolated homogenizations.
    As Steve has laid out, the ‘warming faster than anyplace else’ flag waving has worn out. It’s tired.

  112. David W says: …7.23 and 7.18
    That is REALLY: 7.323 and 7.318.
    Yet JAXA still shows 2009 passing 2010 (but by a tenth as much)

    Comparing _______2007___ to___ 2010_______&______2009
    Ahead June 28______ no________ 679,531 Sq.Km______ no
    Ahead July 25____542,500_________no______________5,312

    Daily: ___________2007_________2010__
    July23-24 ______ – 115,906 _____- 93,906
    July24-25 ______ – 76,875 _____ – 56,875preliminary

    Remaining Melts (K= 1,000km2) ___2 Days @ 93 K __3d@ 87 K __ 5d@ 55
    __4d@ 107__4d@ 80__12d@ 50__ 4d@ 33__ 5d@ 55__24Days @ 14.5 K

    However, The La Nina High Pressure Systems are Creeping Closer: now moving North a bit Out of the Pacific near Juneau Alaska: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/mslp_01.fnl.html
    … We could start quarter-million Melts in a week … or a Month.
    I think Wayne Davidson’s “Big Blue” is coming … Blue Skies, anyway.
    Tell you what Steve: I’ll cut my estimate for a Melt severe enough to cause Ocean Current Shutdown … by 0.1 percent per day, if
    Under 150K, .2 if under 100K and .4 if under 50K … but above 150 K each 50K Doubles also e.g 500K/day = 2E7 = + 12.8%. Well, actually, I’ve BEEN doing that, and what I once said was a Likelihood of 1/4 to 1/8th, is now about 1/10 th..
    Call it 10%, less 0.2 for today = 9.8 %.

  113. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    July 25, 2010 at 9:57 pm

    Sooooo, why do these Arctic ice posts get so much attention?

    Because you can’t get up there on a dime.
    Not like the sea level, where one can see it’s not going anywhere.

  114. Phil. says:
    July 25, 2010 at 5:20 pm

    Air in the close vicinity of melting sea ice would be expected to stay close to 0ºC.
    Regarding temperature, according to Spencer’s AQUA Ch 5 every day in July as been as hot or hotter than any other days since 1979 (to within the width of the line). So it would be surprising if July 2010 doesn’t turn out to be the hottest month of the satellite record.

    What about the difference between DMI and GISS? Why is one well below normal, and the other the ‘hottest (insert) in (insert)’? Why is there such a profound difference in the Arctic? One is ~1C below normal (the color blue on a map)! Yet, I get the big red splotch treatment from GISS-filled maps. WUWT?

    “Qualitative support for the greater Arctic anomaly of the GISS analysis is provided by Arctic temperature anomaly patterns in the GISS analysis: regions warmer or cooler than average when the mean anomaly is adjusted to zero are realistic-looking meteorological patterns.”

    Oh, because it looks real! How scientific.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/paper/gistemp2010_draft0601.pdf

  115. ” Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    July 25, 2010 at 9:57 pm

    Arctic ice is not supposed to be an important topic. Sooooo, why do these Arctic ice posts get so much attention?

    Just askin……”

    1) Winter ice is a baby to the GW group. If it stops showing any trend upwards (along with temps…), the entire GCM modeling philosophy has to be reworked. They worked themselves into a corner with this one because other ideas did not pan out.

    2) Along with the amazon, winter ice is something tangible to sell to the “unwashed masses”. If this goes, they are left with the amazon which would not bear scrutiny.

    3) This particular en nino is the last chance to show warming and have it believable on the short-term. Long-term, yes, we might be warming, but over next 10+ years they know what the PDO will do to global temperatures, and especially the solar cycle whose effect takes up to 10 years to show.

    Once again, climate science became about politics unfortunately, so trends of this year versus last year do matter, because in public policy people just do not have that long of an attention span… Its all about the agenda and making sure the right news hits at the right time. You have to keep the public entertained, or they get bored and move onto topics that actually might be pressing.

  116. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    July 25, 2010 at 9:23 pm

    JJB says:
    July 25, 2010 at 5:46 pm

    I bet the September 2010 ice extent will drop far below his predicted 5.5 million sq-km.

    Hey, it’s your lucky day! There is a place taking bets!!!!

    Here’s the link to it: https://www.intrade.com

    Brooks says:
    July 25, 2010 at 7:43 pm

    Wayne Delbeke says:
    “Good Grief! The Russians have been regularly navigating the North East Passage for close to 100 years. Explorers have been going through for about 450 years. What is new about this? Just Google it, lots of references.:”

    I did as you suggested and immediately found this article from Sept 2009:

    http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1924410,00.html

    Excerpt: “Shunning conventional shipping routes between Asia and Europe in what appears to be the first commercial navigation via the treacherous Arctic sea-lane, Beluga, the shipping company behind the voyage, said in a statement that “we are all very proud” to have “successfully transited the legendary Northeast Passage.

    Plenty have tried. For centuries, sailors have searched for a shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans through the icy waters off Russia’s northern coast.”

    WUWT had a thread on that story last year, here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/07/the-surprising-real-story-about-this-years-northeast-passage-transit/

    There were also comments on that story in other Arctic ice-related threads. I made the following comment, approximately, in one of them:

    The two Beluga vessels that transited the Passage made their voyage because they were delivering heavy equipment from a manufacturer in Asia to a northern Russian port. They then continued westwards to their homeport in Europe. They were not doing so because the NE passage to Western Europe is shorter and more economical.

    They had to wait in port in Asia (paying crew’s wages and port fees) for weeks before they got the green light from the Russians that the coast was the clearest it was going to get, and that their icebreakers were available. And speed was reduced during the portion of the voyage that required the icebreakers to clear a path ahead. These factors mean the route is not nearly economical yet for ordinary shipping. IOW “lower fuel and bunker costs” are only part of the story.

    The Passage will only be as open as it was for a couple of weeks. Thereafter traversal will get harder. There’s only a brief open window at present.

  117. RE: Amino Acids in Meteorites: (July 25, 2010 at 2:04 pm) “Skeptics? Who’s a skeptic?”

    In my view, you accept the term ‘Catastrophic AGW Alarm Skeptic’ (perhaps shortened to ‘CAGW Skeptic’) for yourself if you feel that this danger is unlikely, but still allow that those warning of catastrophic AGW might eventually prove to have been correct. If you feel quite sure that there is no danger of this ever happening, then perhaps you are better described as a ‘Catastrophic AGW Alarm Antagonist’ or ‘Catastrophic AGW Alarm Rejector.’

  118. R. Gates says:
    July 25, 2010 at 4:35 pm
    phlogiston says:
    July 25, 2010 at 3:20 pm
    So much has been staked by both sides on the Arctic ice melt that September could be the STALINGRAD of the AGW controversy. Defeat for the warmists – in the form of continued year-on-year recovery 2007-2008-2009-2010, would establish a firm trend and culminate a long series of failed AGW predictions of Arctic ice death spiral. It will not be the end of the conflict – far from it – the Kursks, Prokhorovkas and Berlins will still lie ahead. But the tide will have turned…
    _________
    This is very funny

    Sounding confident as usual. So you think it will all be over by Christmas? (Where did I hear that before?)

    R. Gates says:
    July 25, 2010 at 8:20 pm
    latitude says:
    July 25, 2010 at 7:44 pm

    You would do well to pick up a book on chaos theory.

    What is really funny is AGW proponents such as yourself jumping onto the chaos theory bandwagon. “Chaos theory”, or more precisely, non-linear and non-equilibrium spontaneous pattern formation at the boundary of linearity and chaos, is indeed an important aspect of climate and undermines the simplistic arithmetic basis of AGW based on radiative forcing. It also changes the effect of feedbacks in such a way as to undermine the feedback arguments of CAGW. Tsonis employed non-linear system analysis to propose a natural cyclical basis for the temperature oscillations of the past century which correctly predicted the current reversal of warming to cooling.

    https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kravtsov/www/downloads/GRL-Tsonis.pdf

    “Chaos theory” is not a friend of AGW.

  119. Rod Everson:

    I know that for about a decade from the early 80’s to the early 90’s the maps at Cryosphere systematically shows spurious ice in coastal areas in summer (I can’t check the exact dates since that part of Cryosphere is down). I know the ice is non-existent in the cases of the Baltic and the White Sea, and by comparing with maps before and after the critical period it is clear that the problem extends to most coastal areas around the Arctic.
    Whether this ice is counted or not I do not know. The Baltic for some reason is not included in the counted area but other affected areas like the White Sea, the Bering Saa, the Gulf of St Lawrence and the Sea of Okhotsk is. It is possible that they somehow correct for the error, but I doubt it. It would be very difficult to do without an independent data source.

  120. Re: Discrepancy between DMI and GISS Arctic temperature anomalies.

    Earlier in this thread, both Dave F and Caleb asked a very reasonable question “how can GISS be claiming a positive anomaly, whilst the DMI data simultaneously implied that this year’s figures were below average?”

    It is possible that the answer could be simply due to the differing baselines employed. My understanding (always suspect, even on a good day) is that GISS uses 1951 – 1980 as their base. However, it looks like DMI calculates their mean temperature on the entirety of the figures available on their website, i.e. 1958 – present.

    By definition, the mean GISS global temperature anomaly for 1951-1980 comes out as 0 degrees C. However, the GISS global mean anomaly for 1958-2009 is +0.19 C. (Based on the numbers given in http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt)

    As reported temperatures have been ramping up from the ’80s onwards, any “mean” incorporating more recent years would be expected to be higher than the fixed 1951-80 reference used by GISS.

    As an analogy, whilst living in Scotland, I was considered taller than average. However, whilst working in the Netherlands, I developed in crick in the neck looking up at people. In other words, using one mean, I was a positive anomaly, but was simultaneously a negative anomaly using the other, equally valid, mean. Any time one uses different baselines, then considerable care is required when talking about divergences from their respective means.

    The above suggestion might be an over-simplification, as, instead of a single global mean, there may be specific latitudinal means are employed in the calculation of these zonal anomalies. Nonetheless, the differing baselines should account for a major portion of the apparent discrepancy between what GISS and DMI are reporting. Differences in algorithms (Al Gore Rhythms?????) and collection methods should account for the remainder.

    Obviously, if there is still a significant unexplained discrepancy once the baselines are normalised, then, to borrow a line from Hamlet “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark – or the other place”.

    If someone (perhaps Mr Goddard??) has the inclination to perform a normalisation on the baselines, it would be very illuminating to see the outcome.

  121. Phil and EFS_Junior,

    I was showing the ice chart for the route that Bear Grylls plans to take which goes via Cambridge Bay. The ‘classical’ route.

    PS I see lots of clouds in the MODIS pictures you linked – not sure I would rely on those particular photographs. I believe the Canadian Met Office uses Radarsat to compile their ice reports.

  122. R. Gates says:
    July 25, 2010 at 8:09 pm
    … The formation of any single bubble is chaotic yet deterministic (as all chaotic but non-random systems are) and this is akin to predicting the weather. The knowledge that the pot will eventually boil is akin to knowing the climate. We still don’t know all the variables and feedbacks that would be similar to the thermodynamic properties of the pot or the purity of the water, but I think the GCM’s have enough in them to know enough to know the general direction, if not the exact point where the water starts to boil. But indeed, there may be chaotic “bubbles” that form in unpredictable places along the way
    ———-

    The physicist Joseph Ford had a phrase “A chaotic system is its own fastest computer”. You cannot make any predictions about a real chaotic system if you don’t know absolutely everything about it to an infinite degree of precision. The Earth’s climate is not merely chaotic, but chaotic with random time-varying inputs!! Chaotic system variables exhibit sensitive dependence on initial conditions, as do the statistical properties of chaotic systems. Your analogy of boiling water is false because a key definition of chaos is that the system variables remain bounded. If you just turn up the notch until the oceans boil away, that is not chaos. All chaos theory does is draw a line in the sand which kinda says “You Shall Not Pass” (like when Gandalf meets the Balrog, but I digress :) )

  123. Bill the Frog

    The difference in baseline is much too small to account for the differences between GISS and DMI.

    A much simpler explanation is that GISS does not have any data points above 80N, and that they generate imaginary temperatures there.

  124. The GISS 250 km Arctic image shows temperature trends from 1880 to 2008. Is it possible that the Artic was not monitored in 1880 with the same density of measurement that it is today? Perhaps a more modern map would show a greater density of polar coverage and reassure your readers of the current trend.

  125. R. Gates says:
    July 25, 2010 at 8:20 pm
    Tipping points are real events and among the most important in nature. You would do well to pick up a book on chaos theory. Human life, and all life only exists because of tipping points during our development.
    =============================================================

    So you agree the computer games are completely worthless.
    GCMs can not model tipping points or chaos.

    Why do you have so much faith in the GCMs then?

  126. Charles Wilson says:
    July 25, 2010 at 10:35 pm
    “David W says: …7.23 and 7.18
    That is REALLY: 7.323 and 7.318.
    Yet JAXA still shows 2009 passing 2010 (but by a tenth as much)”

    Oops sorry, missed a digit. Thanks for the correction. Yepo its only a small difference but the gap may widen a little further tomorrow if we get another daily loss under 60,000 sq km.

  127. savethesharks says:
    July 25, 2010 at 9:46 pm
    R. Gates says:
    July 25, 2010 at 8:20 pm

    “You would do well to pick up a book on chaos theory.”

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

    And you would do most well to just pick up a few books of meteorology and physics, not to mention a book or two on logical fallacies, and just basically NOT set forth your opinion….for a very VERY long while.

    Sort of like a monk taking a vow of silence.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA
    ____________

    I’m no Ph.D., but I can hold my own, thank you very much. I’ll express my viewpoints when I feel the urge as I never thought being a monk would be too interesting a life.

  128. tty says:
    July 26, 2010 at 4:20 am
    Rod Everson:

    I know that for about a decade from the early 80′s to the early 90′s the maps at Cryosphere systematically shows spurious ice in coastal areas in summer (I can’t check the exact dates since that part of Cryosphere is down). I know the ice is non-existent in the cases of the Baltic and the White Sea, and by comparing with maps before and after the critical period it is clear that the problem extends to most coastal areas around the Arctic.
    Whether this ice is counted or not I do not know. The Baltic for some reason is not included in the counted area but other affected areas like the White Sea, the Bering Saa, the Gulf of St Lawrence and the Sea of Okhotsk is. It is possible that they somehow correct for the error, but I doubt it. It would be very difficult to do without an independent data source.

    Here’s what NSIDC, have to say about that:

    “Please note that our daily sea ice images, derived from microwave measurements, may show spurious pixels in areas where sea ice may not be present. These artifacts are generally caused by coastline effects, or less commonly by severe weather. Scientists use masks to minimize the number of “noise” pixels, based on long-term extent patterns. Noise is largely eliminated in the process of generating monthly averages, our standard measurement for analyzing interannual trends.”

    In any case the difference in the two figures I quoted was over 1Mm^2, orders of magnitude different.

  129. Dr Chaos says:
    July 26, 2010 at 6:03 am
    R. Gates says:
    July 25, 2010 at 8:09 pm
    … The formation of any single bubble is chaotic yet deterministic (as all chaotic but non-random systems are) and this is akin to predicting the weather. The knowledge that the pot will eventually boil is akin to knowing the climate. We still don’t know all the variables and feedbacks that would be similar to the thermodynamic properties of the pot or the purity of the water, but I think the GCM’s have enough in them to know enough to know the general direction, if not the exact point where the water starts to boil. But indeed, there may be chaotic “bubbles” that form in unpredictable places along the way
    ———-

    The physicist Joseph Ford had a phrase “A chaotic system is its own fastest computer”. You cannot make any predictions about a real chaotic system if you don’t know absolutely everything about it to an infinite degree of precision. The Earth’s climate is not merely chaotic, but chaotic with random time-varying inputs!! Chaotic system variables exhibit sensitive dependence on initial conditions, as do the statistical properties of chaotic systems. Your analogy of boiling water is false because a key definition of chaos is that the system variables remain bounded. If you just turn up the notch until the oceans boil away, that is not chaos. All chaos theory does is draw a line in the sand which kinda says “You Shall Not Pass” (like when Gandalf meets the Balrog, but I digress :) )
    ________________
    I think that the Milankovitch cycles would indicate that we do know the pot will boil (or freeze) in fairly predictable ways…i.e. we know the final destination, but we just don’t know the path to get there because it is a chaotic path, but the general direction is not chaotic. What we currently don’t know (and is the essential issue of AGW) is how sensitive the climate truly is to a 40% increase (and rising) of CO2 over a geologically short time period. Using the sandpile model, at what point does a slight change in CO2 represent that additional grain of sand added to the top of a sandpile to cause the pile to collapse? We know (based on Milankovitch) that we are headed to another ice age in 30,000 years or so…but what will be the nature of the little chaotic bubble that will be created by the additional quick anthropogenic rise in CO2?

  130. Billy Liar says:
    July 26, 2010 at 5:31 am
    Phil and EFS_Junior,

    I was showing the ice chart for the route that Bear Grylls plans to take which goes via Cambridge Bay. The ‘classical’ route.

    PS I see lots of clouds in the MODIS pictures you linked – not sure I would rely on those particular photographs. I believe the Canadian Met Office uses Radarsat to compile their ice reports.

    Clouds move, using AQUA and TERRA images you can see the same area several times a day. Last summer I found the MODIS images gave a better fit to what was being reported ‘on the water’ than the Ice Canada Radarsat (which were more conservative, not a bad thing given their mission).
    Also I’m not sure about that ‘fast ice’ shown on the map you cited, it hasn’t been shown as such before, for example: http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/WIS56SD/20100719180000_WIS56SD_0005094543.gif

  131. stevengoddard says:
    July 26, 2010 at 6:18 am
    Bill the Frog

    The difference in baseline is much too small to account for the differences between GISS and DMI.

    A much simpler explanation is that GISS does not have any data points above 80N, and that they generate imaginary temperatures there.

    Which begs the question: how many data points above 80ºN do DMI use in their computer model, how much of their temperature is imaginary? Unless you treat both sources similarly you haven’t dealt with the problem, both use very sparse data and interpolate.

  132. R. Gates says:
    July 26, 2010 at 7:02 am

    I’m no Ph.D., but I can hold my own, thank you very much. I’ll express my viewpoints when I feel the urge as I never thought being a monk would be too interesting a life.

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

    Might be a good discipline for you.

    And help you ponder more…and talk less…out of your austral end. ;-)

    I like your resolve, R.

    Its just that when your agenda, overwhelms your science, the agenda kills the science.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  133. Good Science, and the Scientific Method that supports it, is a strong, but fragile ecosystem.

    Agenda-driven politics, of any kind, are the unwanted weeds, poison ivy, and nasty, worthless opportunistic species..that threaten to cause the ecosystem to fail.

    Right now, the multi-billion dollar pseudo-scientific International Church of the CAGW…is the Round-up-worthy, “carpet-bagger” invasion of the Science Ecosystem.

    OK….not Round-up. Some other herbicide not made by Monsanto (don’t give them a dime of your money!), but you get my point…

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  134. Oops, it looks like JAXA changed their minds, like they always do 1-2 times per day, and 2010 has not crossed 2009 YET.

    2010 is still 7,344 km^2 below 2009.

    Mabye after tomorrow’s final, or the next day’s final, or the next day after that, …, you all can crow aboot 2009 vs 2010.

    Of course, being below, or above, a given year is no guarantee of the final Arctic sea ice extent, until such time that we can refer to the actual 2010 Arctic sea ice minima in the past tense.

  135. Phil, if you look at the egg code for ice I described as ‘fast ice’ on the chart you linked to you will see that the form of ice (bottom figure in the egg) for area ‘C’ on the chart is ‘8’ – which is fast ice. So it’s fast ice on your chart too.

  136. R. Gates says: “but what will be the nature of the little
    chaotic bubble that will be created by the additional quick anthropogenic rise in CO2?”

    One possibility is that each additional molecule of CO2 represents a grain of sand taken from the top of the pile and moved to the side. Evidence shows less water vapor in crucial areas like the top of the troposphere and therefore more stability.

  137. Modern temperature data IS being collected in the Arctic using ground, ship, and satellite. The “hole”, being represented in this post as a lack of data, is simply the deliberate exclusion of this data from the GISS analysis by a process called an ice mask. Hansen uses this mask to exclude data unduly influenced by sea ice, where as surface temperatures measured on sea ice contrasts sharply with that over exposed sea.

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100127_TemperatureFinal.pdf

    Hansen explains his method and the rational behind it. The omission of this data is fully noted and represented in his papers and is not the result of “no data” condition in this region.

  138. stevengoddard:
    I have a query on the webcam images. You say the North Pole image shows the melt pond frozen solid. You may be right, but I can’t see that in the picture myself. It looks dark, like water, or perhaps water with a thin layer of ice on top. Could you perhaps post a tutorial on how to spot the differences, with comparative images from various stages?

  139. @R Gates

    I take your point on sandpiles and so on, but you are veering into complexity theory and the work of Per Bak on self-organized criticality, which I don’t know a whole lot about! The way I see it, putting my nonlinear systems hat on, the Earth’s climate is sitting at some point in an n-dimensional space, where each dimension represents some parameter that can be varied, such as CO2 or albedo, or the Sun’s output. A lot of this space represents robust chaos – we know this because the parameters are changing all the time and we are here to tell the tale. No doubt some points in the space represent unstable solutions where the earth boils or freezes. However, if we know that CO2 has been much higher in the past than it is now, then IMHO there is nothing to worry about in increasing CO2 from 280 to 380ppm over a century as this region of the space is historically robust. If the Earth has survived umpteen asteroid strikes and supervolcano eruptions, then I’m sure it’ll survive a gentle ramping in CO2 levels.

  140. dr chaos says:
    July 26, 2010 at 11:04 am
    @R Gates

    I take your point on sandpiles and so on, but you are veering into complexity theory and the work of Per Bak on self-organized criticality, which I don’t know a whole lot about! The way I see it, putting my nonlinear systems hat on, the Earth’s climate is sitting at some point in an n-dimensional space, where each dimension represents some parameter that can be varied, such as CO2 or albedo, or the Sun’s output. A lot of this space represents robust chaos – we know this because the parameters are changing all the time and we are here to tell the tale. No doubt some points in the space represent unstable solutions where the earth boils or freezes. However, if we know that CO2 has been much higher in the past than it is now, then IMHO there is nothing to worry about in increasing CO2 from 280 to 380ppm over a century as this region of the space is historically robust. If the Earth has survived umpteen asteroid strikes and supervolcano eruptions, then I’m sure it’ll survive a gentle ramping in CO2 levels.

    You’ve a very subtle jump there, the ‘speed of the hand deceives the eye’, you’d need to know that the [CO2], solar irradiance, Earth’s albedo and distribution of the continents and oceans have been the same before without ill effects, not just one of the parameters. If you did show that and at that time there were no polar icecaps would you be so sanguine?

  141. dr chaos says:
    July 26, 2010 at 11:04 am
    @R Gates

    I take your point on sandpiles and so on, but you are veering into complexity theory and the work of Per Bak on self-organized criticality, which I don’t know a whole lot about! The way I see it, putting my nonlinear systems hat on, the Earth’s climate is sitting at some point in an n-dimensional space, where each dimension represents some parameter that can be varied, such as CO2 or albedo, or the Sun’s output. A lot of this space represents robust chaos – we know this because the parameters are changing all the time and we are here to tell the tale. No doubt some points in the space represent unstable solutions where the earth boils or freezes. However, if we know that CO2 has been much higher in the past than it is now, then IMHO there is nothing to worry about in increasing CO2 from 280 to 380ppm over a century as this region of the space is historically robust. If the Earth has survived umpteen asteroid strikes and supervolcano eruptions, then I’m sure it’ll survive a gentle ramping in CO2 levels.
    ____________
    I would argue that from a geological perspective, it has been anything but a “gentle ramping” in CO2. The 40% rise in the past few hundred years is virtually instant from a historical geological perspective…a sharp spike upward as it were. This “spike” is yet another dimension in the phase space of the climate system…in other words, raise CO2 from 280 to 390 ppm over 2 million years and you get one set of attractors, but raise it virtually instantly, and you get an entirely different set or topograph of phase space.

    In terms of the earth suriviving…of that I have no doubt. Life is pretty robust and “will find a way” so to speak, but it is interesting to note that we are seeing an increase in the overall species extinction rates around the globe, but beyond that basic fact, I’ve not studied it too much. It may be more related to loss of habitat from other human activities rather than specific to AGW.

  142. EFS_Junior says:
    July 26, 2010 at 8:57 am

    Oops, it looks like JAXA changed their minds, like they always do 1-2 times per day, and 2010 has not crossed 2009 YET.

    JAXA uses a five-day moving average, so each daily figure will be adjusted four times (I think).

  143. stevengoddard says:
    July 26, 2010 at 11:18 am
    “As pond ice gets thicker, it becomes more opaque and develops a frosted appearance. Thin ice tends to be very transparent.”

    Yes, that’s why I didn’t think it looked frozen solid; it doesn’t seem opaque and frosted enough. Which is why I thought presenting a comparative series might be valuable.

  144. Mo/Dy/Hr     Latitude   Longitude    Temp      Press

    07/26/1600Z    86.422°N    2.625°E    -0.4°C    990.3mb
    07/26/1500Z    86.424°N    2.567°E    -0.4°C    990.0mb
    07/26/1400Z    86.426°N    2.517°E    -0.4°C    989.8mb
    07/26/1300Z    86.428°N    2.476°E    -0.4°C    989.8mb
    07/26/1200Z    86.431°N    2.444°E    -0.3°C    990.0mb
    07/26/1100Z    86.434°N    2.414°E    -0.3°C    989.6mb
    07/26/1000Z    86.437°N    2.380°E    -0.4°C    989.2mb
    07/26/0900Z    86.441°N    2.338°E    -0.4°C    989.3mb
    07/26/0800Z    86.444°N    2.288°E    -0.3°C    989.9mb
    07/26/0700Z    86.448°N    2.223°E    -0.3°C    990.5mb
    07/26/0600Z    86.451°N    2.146°E    -0.3°C    991.6mb
    07/26/0400Z    86.456°N    1.934°E    -0.4°C    992.6mb
    07/26/0300Z    86.457°N    1.810°E    -0.4°C    994.0mb
    07/26/0200Z    86.458°N    1.684°E    -0.4°C    995.8mb
    07/26/0100Z    86.459°N    1.559°E    -0.5°C    997.3mb
    07/26/0000Z    86.460°N    1.443°E    -0.4°C    998.8mb
    07/25/2300Z    86.462°N    1.322°E    -0.5°C   1000.3mb
    07/25/2200Z    86.464°N    1.220°E    -0.6°C   1001.6mb
    07/25/2100Z    86.467°N    1.105°E    -0.7°C   1002.6mb
    07/25/2000Z    86.470°N    1.008°E    -0.6°C   1003.7mb
    07/25/1900Z    86.473°N    0.926°E    -0.5°C   1004.5mb
    07/25/1800Z    86.476°N    0.859°E    -0.5°C   1005.2mb
    07/25/1700Z    86.479°N    0.795°E    -0.6°C   1006.1mb
    07/25/1500Z    86.485°N    0.680°E    -0.6°C   1007.6mb
    07/25/1400Z    86.487°N    0.632°E    -0.7°C   1008.3mb
    07/25/1300Z    86.490°N    0.586°E    -0.6°C   1008.8mb
    07/25/1200Z    86.492°N    0.549°E    -0.6°C   1009.1mb
    07/25/1100Z    86.494°N    0.513°E    -0.8°C   1009.4mb
    07/25/1000Z    86.495°N    0.485°E    -1.0°C   1009.5mb
    07/25/0800Z    86.498°N    0.458°E    -0.9°C   1010.0mb
    07/25/0700Z    86.499°N    0.457°E    -1.3°C   1009.7mb
    07/25/0600Z    86.500°N    0.462°E    -1.0°C   1010.1mb
    07/25/0500Z    86.501°N    0.470°E    -0.6°C   1010.4mb
    07/25/0400Z    86.502°N    0.480°E    -0.9°C   1010.6mb
    07/25/0300Z    86.503°N    0.493°E    -1.0°C   1010.4mb
    07/25/0100Z    86.505°N    0.518°E    -1.0°C   1010.3mb
    07/25/0000Z    86.505°N    0.532°E    -1.1°C   1010.4mb
    07/24/2300Z    86.506°N    0.548°E    -1.2°C   1010.1mb
    07/24/2200Z    86.507°N    0.564°E    -1.0°C   1010.1mb
    07/24/2100Z    86.507°N    0.581°E    -0.8°C   1009.8mb
    07/24/2000Z    86.508°N    0.598°E    -0.9°C   1009.8mb
    07/24/1900Z    86.508°N    0.615°E    -0.8°C   1009.8mb
    07/24/1800Z    86.509°N    0.629°E    -0.8°C   1009.7mb
    07/24/1700Z    86.509°N    0.641°E    -1.5°C   1009.5mb
    07/24/1600Z    86.510°N    0.649°E    -2.4°C   1009.5mb
    07/24/1500Z    86.510°N    0.657°E    -1.7°C   1009.8mb
    07/24/1400Z    86.511°N    0.661°E    -0.6°C   1011.0mb
    07/24/1300Z    86.511°N    0.665°E    -0.4°C   1010.9mb
    07/24/1200Z    86.512°N    0.669°E    -0.5°C   1011.4mb
    07/24/1100Z    86.513°N    0.670°E    -0.8°C   1009.2mb
    07/24/1000Z    86.514°N    0.668°E    -1.1°C   1008.7mb
    07/24/0900Z    86.515°N    0.667°E    -1.8°C   1008.8mb
    07/24/0800Z    86.515°N    0.666°E    -2.1°C   1009.2mb
    07/24/0700Z    86.516°N    0.667°E    -2.2°C   1009.0mb
    07/24/0600Z    86.516°N    0.670°E    -2.9°C   1008.8mb
    07/24/0500Z    86.517°N    0.674°E    -3.2°C   1008.5mb
    07/24/0400Z    86.517°N    0.677°E    -3.4°C   1008.1mb
    07/24/0300Z    86.518°N    0.676°E    -3.7°C   1007.8mb
    07/24/0200Z    86.519°N    0.668°E    -3.5°C   1007.8mb
    07/24/0100Z    86.520°N    0.652°E    -3.3°C   1007.7mb
    07/24/0000Z    86.520°N    0.631°E    -3.1°C   1007.4mb
    07/23/2300Z    86.521°N    0.605°E    -3.0°C   1006.9mb
    07/23/2200Z    86.521°N    0.579°E    -2.8°C   1006.9mb
    07/23/2100Z    86.522°N    0.550°E    -2.5°C   1006.8mb
    07/23/2000Z    86.522°N    0.524°E    -2.3°C   1006.7mb
    07/23/1900Z    86.523°N    0.500°E    -2.1°C   1006.3mb
    07/23/1800Z    86.524°N    0.478°E    -2.0°C   1006.4mb
    07/23/1700Z    86.525°N    0.457°E    -1.9°C   1006.2mb
    07/23/1600Z    86.526°N    0.436°E    -1.8°C   1006.0mb
    07/23/1500Z    86.528°N    0.411°E    -1.8°C   1006.2mb
    07/23/1400Z    86.529°N    0.388°E    -1.8°C   1006.6mb
    07/23/1300Z    86.531°N    0.364°E    -1.8°C   1006.8mb
    07/23/1200Z    86.532°N    0.344°E    -1.8°C   1006.9mb
    07/23/1100Z    86.534°N    0.326°E    -1.8°C   1006.9mb
    07/23/1000Z    86.535°N    0.310°E    -1.9°C   1007.0mb
    07/23/0700Z    86.540°N    0.290°E    -2.8°C   1006.8mb
    07/23/0600Z    86.542°N    0.292°E    -2.8°C   1006.8mb
    07/23/0500Z    86.543°N    0.297°E    -2.8°C   1007.2mb
    07/23/0400Z    86.544°N    0.303°E    -3.0°C   1007.6mb
    07/23/0300Z    86.545°N    0.307°E    -2.9°C   1007.6mb
    07/23/0200Z    86.546°N    0.309°E    -3.1°C   1007.8mb
    07/23/0100Z    86.546°N    0.313°E    -3.0°C   1007.3mb
    07/22/2300Z    86.547°N    0.328°E    -2.3°C   1007.6mb
    07/22/2200Z    86.547°N    0.334°E    -2.4°C   1007.6mb
    07/22/2100Z    86.548°N    0.343°E    -2.0°C   1007.6mb
    07/22/1900Z    86.549°N    0.357°E    -2.0°C   1007.5mb
    07/22/1800Z    86.549°N    0.363°E    -2.1°C   1007.5mb
    07/22/1700Z    86.549°N    0.369°E    -2.2°C   1007.7mb
    07/22/1500Z    86.549°N    0.383°E    -1.9°C   1007.7mb
    07/22/1400Z    86.549°N    0.391°E    -1.7°C   1009.1mb
    07/22/1300Z    86.548°N    0.399°E    -1.8°C   1009.4mb
    07/22/1200Z    86.548°N    0.405°E    -1.8°C   1009.0mb
    07/22/1100Z    86.547°N    0.405°E    -1.9°C   1008.6mb
    07/22/1000Z    86.546°N    0.408°E    -2.0°C   1008.2mb
    07/22/0900Z    86.545°N    0.410°E    -2.1°C   1008.0mb
    07/22/0800Z    86.544°N    0.414°E    -2.2°C   1008.1mb
    07/22/0700Z    86.543°N    0.419°E    -2.2°C   1008.1mb
    07/22/0600Z    86.542°N    0.425°E    -2.3°C   1008.0mb
    07/22/0500Z    86.540°N    0.433°E    -2.4°C   1008.0mb
    07/22/0400Z    86.538°N    0.443°E    -2.5°C   1008.1mb

     

  145. Roger Knights says:
    July 26, 2010 at 12:09 pm
    EFS_Junior says:
    July 26, 2010 at 8:57 am

    Oops, it looks like JAXA changed their minds, like they always do 1-2 times per day, and 2010 has not crossed 2009 YET.

    JAXA uses a five-day moving average, so each daily figure will be adjusted four times (I think).
    ____________________________________________________________

    I don’t doubt that AFAIK, as that is what their website states, if I’m not mistaken.

    However, over these past few months, the final previous day’s estimate has always occured (posted) before the next day’s estimate has been posted (In the CDT timezone shortly after 10:00PM).

    So far 2010 has chosen it’s own path, irrespective of previous year’s paths, my expectation, is that it will continue to chose it’s own path (although, if 2010 crosses 2005, 2008, and 2009, then my expectation would be for a greater Arctic sea ice extent than my current expectation, statistically speaking, of course).

  146. From the IJIS web site:

    “Averaging period and the update timing of daily data

    – In general, sea-ice extent is defined as a temporal average of several days (e.g., five days) in order to eliminate calculation errors due to a lack of data (e.g., for traditional microwave sensors such as SMMR and SSM/I). However, we adopt the average of two days to achieve rapid data release. The wider spatial coverage of AMSR-E enables reducing the data-production period.
    – Usually the latest value of daily sea-ice extent is fixed and updated at around 1 p.m. (4 a.m.) JST (UT). Before the value is fixed, we also assign a preliminary value of daily sea-ice extent several times (usually three to four times) as an early report, which is determined without the full two-day observation coverage. (The fixed values of sea-ice extent are determined with the full coverage of observation data.)”

    That reads to me as saying JAXA uses a two day moving average.

  147. EFS_Junior says:
    July 26, 2010 at 12:54 pm
    Roger Knights says:
    July 26, 2010 at 12:09 pm
    EFS_Junior says:
    July 26, 2010 at 8:57 am

    Oops, it looks like JAXA changed their minds, like they always do 1-2 times per day, and 2010 has not crossed 2009 YET.

    JAXA uses a five-day moving average, so each daily figure will be adjusted four times (I think).
    ____________________________________________________________

    I don’t doubt that AFAIK, as that is what their website states, if I’m not mistaken.

    However, over these past few months, the final previous day’s estimate has always occured (posted) before the next day’s estimate has been posted (In the CDT timezone shortly after 10:00PM).

    So far 2010 has chosen it’s own path, irrespective of previous year’s paths, my expectation, is that it will continue to chose it’s own path (although, if 2010 crosses 2005, 2008, and 2009, then my expectation would be for a greater Arctic sea ice extent than my current expectation, statistically speaking, of course).

    The satellite makes two passes a day the final value for the day is posted midmorning EDT.

  148. You’ve a very subtle jump there, the ‘speed of the hand deceives the eye’, you’d need to know that the [CO2], solar irradiance, Earth’s albedo and distribution of the continents and oceans have been the same before without ill effects, not just one of the parameters. If you did show that and at that time there were no polar icecaps would you be so sanguine?
    ___________
    True enough Phil, we don’t know if the Earth has ever been in the current state before, or if some catastrophic bifurcation will happen when CO2 hits 400ppm. But given all we know about CO2 – it’s an extremely weak parameter at best – swamped by the effect of water vapour and its various feedback mechanisms. If the Sun increased its output by 50% in 100 years, I would be worried. But CO2? Nah! I’m far more worried about paying my mortgage.

  149. Cryosphere’s comparo tool and archives seem to be broken links today. Could be a technical issue, I suppose. . .but I’m wondering if they don’t appreciate having those as part of the Sea Ice page here, and hosted elsewhere (to create the comparo image, presumably).

  150. Some of this “phase-time-space-chaos-dimension” speak needs a bit of musical background.

    To wit: “When the moon is in the 7th house, and jupiter aligns with Mars…”

    With that music going on in your head read on: Some of the posts above reminds me of this dead serious quote from a blogger on another website who reads all kinds of things into that song.

    “When the Moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter aligns with Mars, the famous song from the musical ‘Hair’ asks us to believe we will witness the dawning of a new age – the Age of Aquarius. The composers of this song obviously didn’t mean us to take their lyrics too literally however because, as all astrologers know, Jupiter and Mars align so frequently, and the Moon travels through the 7th house once every day, that we would have been through innumerable ‘dawning’s’ since the 1960’s if we were to follow them to the letter.

    When, however, we look for the times when Jupiter aligns with Mars in the sign of Aquarius, it becomes an entirely different matter, especially if we are also looking for the Moon to be in the sign of Libra which holds sway over the seventh house, at the same time. Furthermore if we were to be entering a New Age we would hope for some additional, unmistakable cosmic pointers.”

    I think I’m getting the hang of this. If I don’t mind the forest, I can pay attention to the trees. Or is it, if I don’t mind the trees, I can pay attention to the forest. Or something like that.

    All this is to let R. Gates know:

    Ya lost me.

  151. R. Gates says:
    July 26, 2010 at 11:45 am
    but it is interesting to note that we are seeing an increase in the overall species extinction rates around the globe, but beyond that basic fact, I’ve not studied it too much. It may be more related to loss of habitat from other human activities rather than specific to AGW.
    ===========================================================

    The truth is, for the most part, no we’re not.
    People that say this as fact are lying.

    When you “discover” more obscure species, when you divide and re-classify species, and when you name discovered species as new species that shouldn’t be…

    Gates, it has more to do with how the numbers are giggled and of course money.

    Take giraffes. A few years ago all giraffes were considered one species.
    As one species they were in no danger, no real threats of any kind.

    Recently giraffes have been divided into at least 7 different species.
    Because of that re-classification, now all giraffes are considered endangered,
    and of course the people that study them are now eligible for more money.

    Some birds are a huge problem. If an population of a certain species of bird develops a few more white feathers, is it a new species because of selective breeding?
    I say no, but people that study that population had better say yes, say it’s endangered, or they are broke.

    An example of the other extreme would be orangutans. Cutting down their forests to grow palms for palm oil.
    Rhinos, and gorillas.

    That’s not to say that some things do not make bad evolutionary choices.
    That’s part of it too.
    But no, we are not really seeing an increase in the overall species extinction rates around the globe, at least not the way it’s played up.

  152. RE: R. Gates: (July 26, 2010 at 7:29 am) “What we currently don’t know (and is the essential issue of AGW) is how sensitive the climate truly is to a 40% increase (and rising) of CO2 over a geologically short time period.”

    I think this all depends on how we measure numbers. According to the MODTRAN online absorption calculator results, the raw effect of CO2 on increasing the surface temperature of the Earth is proportional to the log base ten of one plus the CO2 concentration in ppm (Log10(1+CO2)) over a range from about 0.3 (1 ppm) to about 3.9 (7,944 ppm) within one degree C.

    On this basis, we are only talking about of about 5.9 percent logarithmic CO2effect increase: ((log10(391)/log10(281))-1)*100%.

    The raw (no feedback effects or compensation) logarithmic scale factor indicated by the MODTRAN tool appears to be about 2.8 degrees C per factor of *ten* increase in the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

    Note: Above about 7200 ppm a new unexplained factor proportional to the seventh power of the log of the CO2 concentration gradually appears to become significant. (Log10(1+CO2))^7

  153. Steve – your list of “North Pole” temperature data appears to be from the JAMSTEC Buoy which is now at 86.405N and 2.791E. The “North Pole” readings that would accompany your web photograph are from the IABP PAWS Buoy at 87.832N and 6.381W. While data for the 26th of July is not available as of this writing, the temperature at the PAWS site has been, on average, above the sea water freezing point for the last week. These temperatures allow the possibility of both open water and hard frozen ice.

  154. Phil. says:

    The satellite makes two passes a day the final value for the day is posted midmorning EDT.
    ____________________________________________________________

    Aqua (MODIS imagery fame) carries the AMSE-R sensor;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqua_(satellite)

    Orbital period is ~98 minutes, it takes several passes to complete an Arctic map-of-the-day, as it were.

    Thus, for their 2-day average, I have to assume a centered average, with some data from the previous day, some data from the current day, and some data from the next day (tomorrow for us, today for them).

    The date on the map must be JST time and includes data for tomorrow (their time versus our time here in the USA, as Japan is ahead of us by 15 hours (CDT)).

    Also, I’ve seen changes in the JAXA data in the PM (my time CDT), I don’t know that I’ve ever seen in changes after the late afternoon (my time CDT).

    Anyway, I think the latest JAXA value is by now locked for today (my time CDT) and 2010 has not crossed 2009 YET.

  155. Ah, these sea ice posts continue to be entertaining.

    They accuse Steve of deception, of cherry picking locations and times, of passing off weather as climate…

    Then they point to a possible short 3 to 4 year stretch of the Northwest Passage being something like open for about a week or so a year as if it had some great significance indicating something important relevant to long-term climate trends!

    LMAO!

  156. Spector says:
    July 26, 2010 at 2:49 pm
    RE: R. Gates: (July 26, 2010 at 7:29 am) “What we currently don’t know (and is the essential issue of AGW) is how sensitive the climate truly is to a 40% increase (and rising) of CO2 over a geologically short time period.”

    I think this all depends on how we measure numbers. According to the MODTRAN online absorption calculator results, the raw effect of CO2 on increasing the surface temperature of the Earth is proportional to the log base ten of one plus the CO2 concentration in ppm (Log10(1+CO2)) over a range from about 0.3 (1 ppm) to about 3.9 (7,944 ppm) within one degree C.

    On this basis, we are only talking about of about 5.9 percent logarithmic CO2effect increase: ((log10(391)/log10(281))-1)*100%.

    The raw (no feedback effects or compensation) logarithmic scale factor indicated by the MODTRAN tool appears to be about 2.8 degrees C per factor of *ten* increase in the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

    Note: Above about 7200 ppm a new unexplained factor proportional to the seventh power of the log of the CO2 concentration gradually appears to become significant. (Log10(1+CO2))^7
    ____________

    The additional ppm each year of CO2 that is being added is indeed logarithmic in scale, but this doesn’t stop the cumulative effect, nor the possibility of a tipping point. The simple sandpile example can be used here where single grains of sand are added one at a time to a pile. Each grain of sand added is less as a percentage of the overall mass of the sandpile, yet at some point, one single grain of sand will cause a small landslide on the pile. This point is unpredictable but deterministic, and therefore the toppling of the sandpile is chaotic by nature, witht the frequency of landslides on the pile matching any 1 over F noise log-log spectrum (http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/1/f_noise)

    This kind of 1 over f noise chaotic behavior is seen throughout nature, from earthquakes to the formation of clouds. It would not be surprizing if the additional CO2 being added at a relatively (geologically speaking) rapid rate will follow with its own “landslide” tipping points as the “grains” of CO2 continue to be added to the sandpile of the atmosphere. Indeed, the steep drop off in 2007’s summer sea ice extent may very well be one of those little chaotic landslides.

  157. stevengoddard says:
    July 26, 2010 at 3:41 pm
    GeoFlynx

    The surface of the ice is freshwater. The melting point is 0C.

    GeoFlynx – Yes, that is true, but “open water” is sea water and that freezes at ~ minus 1.8C, allowing both open water and hard frozen ice in the same location. The temperatures you gave (list form) are not from where the ice photo was taken and incorrectly indicate somewhat cooler temperatures.

  158. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    July 26, 2010 at 3:38 pm
    Ah, these sea ice posts continue to be entertaining.

    They accuse Steve of deception, of cherry picking locations and times, of passing off weather as climate…

    Then they point to a possible short 3 to 4 year stretch of the Northwest Passage being something like open for about a week or so a year as if it had some great significance indicating something important relevant to long-term climate trends!

    LMAO!
    ________________
    This is the only chart that matters when trying to look at the longer term climate trends in Arctic sea ice:

    Everything else is truly just weather, but entertaining none the less. We’ve not had a positive Arctic Sea ice extent anomaly since 2004. This is far more important a fact in climate discussion related to Arctic Sea ice then whether or not a few melt ponds are freezing over or when Pt. Barrow is free of shore fast ice. Steve gives an excellent analysis of short term fluctuations (i.e. weather).

  159. Of those that attempted the NW passage last year, as a percentage…

    1) How many succeeded?

    2) Of those that succeeded, how many followed in the wake of an icebreaker?

    DaveE.

  160. Here’s what the JAXA site says that (mis?)led me into thinking it used a five-day moving average. Apparently they were obliquely alluding to the way that OTHER organizations operate:

    “In general, sea-ice extent is defined as a temporal average of several days (e.g., five days) in order to eliminate calculation errors due to a lack of data (e.g., for traditional microwave sensors such as SMMR and SSM/I). However, we adopt the average of two days to achieve rapid data release. The wider spatial coverage of AMSR-E enables reducing the data-production period.”

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

  161. RE: R. Gates: (July 26, 2010 at 5:52 pm ) “Each grain of sand added is less as a percentage of the overall mass of the sandpile, yet at some point, one single grain of sand will cause a small landslide on the pile.”

    I believe the primary argument against the incipient catastrophe theory is the long record of disastrous events that our planet has already survived. This includes a prolonged series of huge volcanic trap eruptions in Siberia that may have caused vast deposits of ocean-bottom methane to enter the atmosphere. Right now, our weather does appear to be operating well within the bounds of known recent history.

  162. R. Gates says:
    July 26, 2010 at 5:52 pm
    Spector says:
    July 26, 2010 at 2:49 pm
    RE: R. Gates: (July 26, 2010 at 7:29 am) “What we currently don’t know (and is the essential issue of AGW) is how sensitive the climate truly is to a 40% increase (and rising) of CO2 over a geologically short time period.”

    I think this all depends on how we measure numbers. According to the MODTRAN online absorption calculator results, the raw effect of CO2 on increasing the surface temperature of the Earth is proportional to the log base ten of one plus the CO2 concentration in ppm (Log10(1+CO2)) over a range from about 0.3 (1 ppm) to about 3.9 (7,944 ppm) within one degree C.

    On this basis, we are only talking about of about 5.9 percent logarithmic CO2effect increase: ((log10(391)/log10(281))-1)*100%.

    The raw (no feedback effects or compensation) logarithmic scale factor indicated by the MODTRAN tool appears to be about 2.8 degrees C per factor of *ten* increase in the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

    Note: Above about 7200 ppm a new unexplained factor proportional to the seventh power of the log of the CO2 concentration gradually appears to become significant. (Log10(1+CO2))^7

    Theoretically it would make more sense to fit to log([CO2]/[CO2]o) where [CO2]o is the reference value, at the above 7200 ppm mark again theoretically the expectation is that the fit would be to sqrt([CO2]).

  163. David A. Evans says:
    July 26, 2010 at 6:40 pm
    Of those that attempted the NW passage last year, as a percentage…

    1) How many succeeded?

    That I know of 80+% , the only one I know that didn’t make it was the 13′ open boat that the two Royal Marines were in which was sail and oar powered, they got to Gjoa Havn and the way ahead was clear but they’d lost too much time having to row into headwinds etc., they’re going to restart next month. It’s a good cause they’re raising money for a fund to support wounded servicemen (Toe in the Water). There was another yacht (German?) that was expected to make an attempt but didn’t seem to get started.

    2) Of those that succeeded, how many followed in the wake of an icebreaker?

    None

  164. Spector,

    There is a difference between ‘the planet has already survived’ and ‘species X survived’.

    No-one is saying that the earth will be destroyed by global warming. So, no matter how bad it gets, the planet will survive. But many species will not survive. Humans will, because our technology and intelligence enable rapid adaption. But it is going to hurt; and in fact it already is hurting.

  165. R. Gates says:
    July 26, 2010 at 11:45 am
    dr chaos says:
    July 26, 2010 at 11:04 am
    @R Gates

    I would argue that from a geological perspective, it has been anything but a “gentle ramping” in CO2. The 40% rise in the past few hundred years is virtually instant from a historical geological perspective…a sharp spike upward as it were. This “spike” is yet another dimension in the phase space of the climate system…in other words, raise CO2 from 280 to 390 ppm over 2 million years and you get one set of attractors, but raise it virtually instantly, and you get an entirely different set or topograph of phase space.

    The religious fervour of your apparent conversion to chaos and non-linearity are striking and at first sight might be welcomed: unfortunately you are talking pure 100% bullshit. You give no evidence in any of your postings of having the slightest idea what conditions are required for non-linear spontaneous pattern formation and confuse this with turbulent chaos which is unrelated. Chaos theory (lets stay with this convenient abbreviation) is not just a naming convention. It is not enough just to rename any measured parameter as an “attractor” and any scenario as a “phase space”. You sometimes toss in the word “bifurcation” to add to the impression that you understand this field. But it is only a trick aimed at giving the impression you understand what you clearly do not.

    For instance you earlier suggested that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere could be an attractor. This is impossible, and makes it clear that you are just using these words without any understanding. Having recommended others to read up on the subject, a good starting point for you might be “Deep Simplicity” by John Gribben, Random House, NY. The starting point of bifurcations leading to nonlinear spontaneous pattern formation is a far from equilibrium state. How can the composition of the atmosphere be far from equilibrium? There are multiple sources of CO2 all over the globe, and CO2 is removed from the atmosphere over the whole earth surface. Mixing is thorough due to winds. It is a classic near equilibrium situation. No scenario could be less probably for nonlinear pattern dynamics. As I tried to explain to you earlier, climate energy disequilibrium causes atmosphere composition equilibrium. The sandpile you refer to is a poor analogy to CO2 added to the atmosphere – the sandpile tends to disequilibrium, the atmosphere does not.

    You focus on the rate of CO2 addition and claim completely with no evidence that this creates a different “phase space”. Just using the words to sound chaos-macho, the words dont mean a thing. To make a serious proposition you need to draw analogies in other systems exhibiting nonlinear pattern and with credible similarities with what you are suggesting. How do you know that rate of CO2 change has been always slow? Are you just wriggling out of the inconvenient fact of CO2 historic concentrations up to 5000 ppm with no climate catastrophe, with your trademark sidestepping to try to argue that rate of change is more important than the absolute concentration. Again with no evidence.

    Another reference to get you started on nonlinear pattern formation is a very helpful PhD thesis:

    http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B9p_cojT-pflY2Y2MmZmMWQtOWQ0Mi00MzJkLTkyYmQtMWQ5Y2ExOTQ3ZDdm&hl=nl

    If your forthcoming thesis is as good as this it would be an achievement. Study the subject before filling up blog space with empty use of chaos jargon and stop wasting everyone’s time.

  166. Thanks phlogiston for setting R. Gates straight. R. Gates: you said “Indeed, the steep drop off in 2007′s summer sea ice extent may very well be one of those little chaotic landslides.”

    I can’t claim knowledge of chaos theory, but please explain how rising CO2 caused the wind patterns seen in 2007 and how that relates to chaos theory.

  167. stevengoddard says:
    July 26, 2010 at 6:18 am
    Bill the Frog

    The difference in baseline is much too small to account for the differences between GISS and DMI.

    A much simpler explanation is that GISS does not have any data points above 80N, and that they generate imaginary temperatures there.
    ———————————————————————
    Mr Goddard (Steven), thank you for your speedy response to my query.
    I, on the other hand, must now apologise for the delay in following this up. The problem was that I went out for a one hour run yesterday afternoon. Thirty-odd years ago, this had no material effect: these days, I fall asleep on the couch.

    As you may remember, I had asked if the differing baseline periods used to calculate mean temperatures could (at least partially) explain how GISS show a positive anomaly in the Arctic, whilst the corresponding DMI figures show up negative.

    The mean GISS global temperature anomaly over 1958-2009 works out at about +0.19C, and, as you rightly say, this figure is too small to have more than a second or third order effect on the observed discrepancy between GISS and DMI in the Arctic.

    However, and I apologise again for not phrasing this better in my first post, I expected that the Arctic regional (or zonal, or latitudinal – whatever the correct term is) baselines might show a more pronounced variation than the 0.19C global figure.

    As you know your way round the various datasets far better than most, I thought that you may have been able to shed some light on this. I attempted yesterday to download the 2 metre dataset from the DMI facility, but a warning popped up indicating that this represented a very large file. As my PC is on its last legs (it’s not the only one) I chickened out of proceeding.

    I can certainly relate to your suggestion that the GISS/DMI discrepancy is an artefact of the approach that GISS adopt to “in-fill” grid areas that do not have primary data available. My (very limited) understanding is that this singular approach accounts for the majority of the differences between the GISStemp and HadCRUt anomalies.

    You will not be surprised in the least to learn that, whenever I have attempted to explain the GISS “in-fill” technique to people, they have – without exception – thought that it sounded dubious.

    I am quite happy to do number crunching myself, but would be obliged if you could point me in the correct direction by suggesting a source file that provides the necessary temperature information over as much of the 50+ year period as possible.

    Finally, from a purely personal perspective, I wish you had avoided the use of the word “imaginary” in your response. I thought I had finally managed to get over all those nightmares that began with “Z = X + iY”.

    Thanks … BTF

  168. RE: Phil: (July 26, 2010 at 8:56 pm) “Theoretically it would make more sense to fit to log([CO2]/[CO2]o) where [CO2]o is the reference value, at the above 7200 ppm mark again theoretically the expectation is that the fit would be to sqrt([CO2]).”

    I have looked at the results returned by the online MODTRAN line-by-line atmospheric radiation calculation tool for the default settings in clear tropical air over a very wide range of CO2 concentration levels for the surface temperature required to maintain an observed energy flow (Iout) of 292.993 W/m2 at 70 km altitude.

    Ref:

    http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/Projects/modtran.html

    To make the logarithmic results linear at very low CO2 concentrations I found it necessary to introduce a rather complicated, ad hock, Zero function of the form:

    Z=1.2*CO2 + ((3.648 + 0.587*CO2^(2/3))/(1.0 + 0.106*CO2^(4/3))) – 2.648

    This reduces to
    Z=1.2*CO2 + 1 for very small CO2 concentrations and
    Z=1.2*CO2 – 2.648 for very large CO2 concentrations.

    Using the Microsoft Excel Solver utility I have found that my Modtran results for the surface temperature required to force a 292.993 W/m2 value for Iout appear to be predicted by the formula:

    T=293.565 + 2.8192*Log10(Z) + 6.8673E-5*(log10(Z))^7 degrees K

    with very high accuracy for CO2 concentrations up to 100,000 ppm. I have plotted the data and formula calculations on a nominal Log10(CO2 + 1) scale.

  169. RE: Chaos Theory

    A fair number of earlier posts on this thread have made reference to aspects of Chaos Theory. At the risk of sounding rude or patronising, I suspect that most people’s awareness of this topic is limited to a few throwaway lines spoken by Jeff Goldblum in the movie “Jurassic Park”. (WARNING! For those who enjoy working on their own automobile engines, on NO account should you attempt to fit a Sierpinski gasket.)

    However, if any readers are remotely interested in learning about rudimentary Chaos Theory, then, for what it is worth, I would fully endorse the reading recommendation made above by Phlogiston.

    Several years ago, when I was attempting to bone up on Chaos Theory, my original starting point was a text by James Gleik entitled “CHAOS: Making a New Science”. To say that I struggled with this tome is something of an understatement.

    However, I already owned 5 or 6 books by John (and Mary) Gribben, so when I found out that he (they) had penned an introduction to Chaos Theory – “Deep Simplicity” – I wasted no time in purchasing this as well.

    As with all their books, it was written in a clear and understandable (even for me)fashion. After reading Deep Simplicity twice, I found myself suitably equipped to successfully tackle the more formidable work by James Gleik.

    P.S. If either of the Gribbens happen to read this, and find themselves requiring the services of a proof reader for their next offering…

    P.P.S. Regarding the somewhat confusing authorship (John/John & Mary?) of Deep Simplicity, this is explained in the first paragraph of the Acknowledgements. It seems that the editor has a downer on co-authorship. One cannot help wonder if this issue would have arisen had the co-author been another male.

  170. “However, I already owned 5 or 6 books by John (and Mary) Gribben, so when I found out that he (they) had penned an introduction to Chaos Theory – “Deep Simplicity” – I wasted no time in purchasing this as well.”

    ________

    Most highly recommended!

  171. RE: David Gould: (July 26, 2010 at 9:22 pm) “No-one is saying that the earth will be destroyed by global warming. So, no matter how bad it gets, the planet will survive. But many species will not survive. Humans will, because our technology and intelligence enable rapid adaption. But it is going to hurt; and in fact it already is hurting.”

    There are those, I recall, who maintain that our current climate is balanced on the knife-edge of an irreversible chaos that would cause the oceans to boil and give this planet a Venus-like atmosphere. However, it appears that we have only made a six percent increase in the secondary effect that CO2 has on global temperatures. Clear-air dissolved water vapor, I believe, is the primary greenhouse gas that controls our atmosphere.

    Most of the harm we have done to other animal species, I believe, is by directly interfering with their life-cycles or habitat. I doubt that anyone has documented any harm caused by anthropogenic climate modification.

  172. Spector says:
    July 26, 2010 at 8:48 pm
    RE: R. Gates: (July 26, 2010 at 5:52 pm ) “Each grain of sand added is less as a percentage of the overall mass of the sandpile, yet at some point, one single grain of sand will cause a small landslide on the pile.”

    I believe the primary argument against the incipient catastrophe theory is the long record of disastrous events that our planet has already survived. This includes a prolonged series of huge volcanic trap eruptions in Siberia that may have caused vast deposits of ocean-bottom methane to enter the atmosphere. Right now, our weather does appear to be operating well within the bounds of known recent history.
    _____________

    Hence the great unknown about the rapid increase in CO2. When each yearly addition of a “grain” or ppm of CO2, it will appear that all is well with the sandpile. There will be no warning that the pile is about to collapse. We’ve learned recently that the climate can change very abruptly, with very little warning. Of course, there doesn’t appear to be any real warning out there that such a rapid change in upon us now, and we could go on adding our little CO2 grains to the atmospheric sandpile for centuries without effect. But perhaps the steep downturn in the Arctic sea ice summer minimum over the past few years is a sign of a collapse…and I suspect we’ll know for certain within a few years. And even if we do see an ice free Arctic by 2020 or 2030…I would hesitate to use the word “catastrophe” for some species may benefit and some may not.

  173. Eric (skeptic) says:
    July 27, 2010 at 2:46 am
    Thanks phlogiston for setting R. Gates straight. R. Gates: you said “Indeed, the steep drop off in 2007′s summer sea ice extent may very well be one of those little chaotic landslides.”

    I can’t claim knowledge of chaos theory, but please explain how rising CO2 caused the wind patterns seen in 2007 and how that relates to chaos theory.
    _______________

    The wind patterns of 2007 were part of the Arctic Dipole Anomaly. This wind pattern, though not unheard of before 2000, was relatively rare, and hence the term “anomaly”. The DA has been increasing in frequency over the past 10 years, and was a in place in 2007’s great melt. The increasing frequency of the DA may be a characteristic of polar amplification of AGW as it seems to be at least somewhat related to more expanses of open water in the Arctic.

  174. Repsonse phlogiston:
    July 27, 2010 at 12:11 am

    “For instance you earlier suggested that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere could be an attractor.”

    ______
    Please show me where I made this suggestion. CO2 (in the atmosphere) is a forcing agent, not a region of phase space for the climate. The rapid addition of CO2 to the atmosphere creates a new set of conditons for the climate, or a new phase space, but it is not a region of phase space in itself. My whole point about CO2 (and the sandpile analogy, which is quite appropriate when discussing climate) is that it can be a forcing agent. Fortunately for humans, the climate has been in a state of relative equalibrium for much of human history, though there have been episodes where our species was probably near extinction as the climate oscillated toward an extreme. A sandpile is a system of sand grains, friction, gravity, etc., (assuming you’re building in a windless room). A sandpile, in a windless room with no vibrations etc, is a stable system in equalibrium, far from the edge of chaos. Start adding new grains of sand, and things change. It becomes a dynamic system, with new inputs– it’s phase space is changing. This is no different than the climate system, which is a system of oceans, clouds, sunlight, etc. All systems can be pushed to the edge of chaos, at which point they might, with the tiniest of shoves, change into a different mode. We saw this with our own climate system with the onset of the Younger Dryas period, when the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation shut down suddenly (in a decade or less!) and the climate that had been warming suddenly went back into a deep freeze. The climate was “pushed” to the edge of chaos, where suddenly jumped into an entirely new regime. This is exactly like the anaology of the sandpile collapsing with the addition of just one grain of sand.

    I don’t claim to be an expert (far from) on Chaos theory, but I know enough to know my analogies are generally valid.

    You also said:

    “The sandpile you refer to is a poor analogy to CO2 added to the atmosphere – the sandpile tends to disequilibrium, the atmosphere does not.”

    And

    “How do you know that rate of CO2 change has been always slow?

    The longer term theromstat on the climate and control of the equalibrium of the atmosphere seems to geological in nature as in the weathering of rock which controls the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The weathering of rock generally proceeds very slowly, (millions of years) but during warm periods, the hydrological cycle speeds up, rock weathers faster, more carbon is taken out of the atmosphere, and the climate cools in response, hence acting a long term thermostat. The resent surge in CO2, up 40% in just a few hundred years, is unique in the past 400,000 years at least:

    This fact is not in dispute, and I hold to my analogy that the rise in CO2 over the past few hundred years is not unlike the sudden addition of grains of sand to an otherwise stable sand pile. When a sand pile collapses, it is system seeking a new point of equalibrium.

  175. Phil. said
    July 25, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    “Most of the yachts that have sailed through there make it through in Aug/Sept, I can’t see there’ll be any problem with that this year. For example the two Royal Marines set sail from Inuvik on July 24th last year. Apparently they’re going to rejoin their boat in Gjoa Havn on the 11th Aug to complete their journey”

    Excellent news Phil! They had to stop their summer holiday last year to go back to fight in Afghanistan so it is really nice to see them completing it this year.

    I know Steve G says it is cold up their, but they were wearing flip flops on their feet last year during their journey, so it can’t be that cold! Or perhaps it is just royal Marines for you ;)

    Andy

  176. Meanwhile down in the Antarctic

    The increased ice gain due to the ozone hole and wind patterns in the Antarctic runs up against the buffers of the Southern Ocean winds as I said it would to Just the Facts about 2 months ago. Steve G’s claims of record global ice anomaly come September are now as shaky as his claims of Arctic melt ponds freezing up. Wishful thinking once again I am afraid.

    Andy

  177. From: R. Gates on July 26, 2010 at 6:03 pm

    This is the only chart that matters when trying to look at the longer term climate trends in Arctic sea ice:

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

    A mere extent graph? Where did all the talk go about the great significance of the volume of ice, how the volume is a better measure than mere extent? Has the terrifying PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly chart fallen out of favor?

  178. I think everyone should be clear as to what the DMI data is that Steve shows for regions north of 80N.

    Here is what their website says:
    The daily mean temperature of the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel is estimated from the average of the 00z and 12z analysis for all model grid points inside that area. The ERA40 reanalysis data set from ECMWF, has been applied to calculate daily mean temperatures for the period from 1958 to 2002, from 2002 to 2006 data from the global NWP model T511 is used and from 2006 to present the T799 model data are used.

    The ERA40 reanalysis data, has been applied to calculation of daily climate values that are plotted along with the daily analysis values in all plots. The data used to determine climate values is the full ERA40 data set, from 1958 to 2002.

    Thus, the DMI graph is based on modeled air temperatures, not actual data. What limited actual data exists is assimilated into the numerical model and then the model simulates what the temperatures are at other grid points. Note also that they use a different model for 2002-onwards. It is unclear what bias is imposed by a switch in the model.

  179. It is unclear what bias is imposed by a switch in the model.

    Julienne, might this switch be causing the below average summer temperatures (the green trend called ‘climate’) that seem to start somewhere around 2000-2002?

  180. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    July 27, 2010 at 2:30 pm
    From: R. Gates on July 26, 2010 at 6:03 pm

    This is the only chart that matters when trying to look at the longer term climate trends in Arctic sea ice:

    A mere extent graph? Where did all the talk go about the great significance of the volume of ice, how the volume is a better measure than mere extent? Has the terrifying PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly chart fallen out of favor?
    ___________

    PIOMAS is a model, but the anomaly graph is data. I only brought up PIOMAS months ago when Steve was raging on and on about PIPS 2.0 MODEL. Both are models, and so can’t indicate real trends. The chart referenced above is a real data trend. The Arctic has not had a positive sea ice anomaly since 2004…that’s factual data, not model output.

  181. Spector,

    Even if we got to a Venus-like atmosphere (impossible, as far as I know, but hey …), the planet would still not be destroyed, so we need to be careful about what exactly we are claiming.

    Things like the Siberian traps cause mass extinction events. With ecosystems already under stress from human activity outside AGW, any further stress may be significant. And I believe that we are already seeing that stress – for example, ocean acidification (or reducing baseness).

  182. Günther,
    I haven’t looked into detail what DMI is doing, but I do know that there is a bias in the ERA-40 time-series of air temperature as shown by responses to the Graverson paper published in Nature a couple of years ago.

    In addition Grant et al. (2008) state:
    However, the ERA-40 reanalysis may not be suitable for trend analysis as it incorporates information from different observing systems such as satellite and radiosonde, which might be inconsistent, in particular with respect to trends. Radiosonde measurements provide vertically resolved temperature profiles in the troposphere, whereas satellites provide information on a weighted average over a thick layer. Furthermore, the ERA-40 assimilation system extrapolates information from data-rich to data-sparse areas, which is less reliable than observations. The ERA-40 reanalysis in the polar region has not been sufficiently validated by in situ observations and documented problems with satellite radiance assimilations over the Arctic Ocean could lead to spurious trends.

    Further reading of their paper shows that trends poleward of 75N suffer from unrealistic values compared to observations.

  183. R. Gates says : … real data.

    No. It’s a “PROXY” when it’s not what you want – – and Ice is 3-dimensional. Not 2.
    The Mann Curve went Crazy because trees did not grow faster when it got warmer . . . it seems the Bristlecone Pine in the Rockies rarely see deer – – except when it is REALLY warm – – then they get higher than normal & eat the bark off. Instant Ice Age … by Proxy.

    Piomas “Assimilates” – – that is what the AS in the name is, it means “adds” – – MEASUREMENTS of thickness.
    Unfortunately there are not a lot of these, and mostly near the shore. So WHy do I like Piomas ?

    a. It does have TRUE measurements.
    b. It is VERIFIABLE beacause it agrees with ICESAT to 1% – – except once.
    c. We KNOW what the Flaw is – – the Center relies on the “Model” part to fill the gaps, & in the 2007 melt:
    Piomas = 7,300 km3
    ICESAT = 6,000 km3
    … so if Piomas says there is More Ice, it’s right – – Usual Ice = right – – LOW Ice – – right … but NOW ??
    VERY LOW ICE = translated = It’s even WORSE than PIOMAS says.
    Look at the Holes in the Center atrea: http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png
    But while Ice-loss will pick up, & PIPS predicts strong Ice-flow – – it is still rotating the “wrong” direction:

    http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/retrievepic.html?filetype=Displacement&year=2010&month=7&day=28

    Reason ?? those big Pacific Highs are still barely at the Alaska Coast – – likely a week away. Pressure Map: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/mslp_01.fnl.html
    Topaz also shows holes http://topaz.nersc.no/topazVisual/matlab_static_image.php?action=NA_ARC_NWA_Function&file_prefix=ARC&match_date=20100727&depth=0005&variable_name=hice
    Similar to 2007: http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/retrievepic.html?filetype=Thickness&year=2007&month=8&day=19
    And then the Melt surged to meet the hole: http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/retrievepic.html?filetype=Thickness&year=2007&month=8&day=29
    Comparing _______2007___ to___ 2010_______&________2009
    Ahead June 28______ no________ 679,531 Sq. Km (km2)___no__
    Ahead July 25____542,500_________no________________5,312
    Ahead July 26____548,906_________no_________________no__
    2010 again ahead of 2009 by__6,857 (80156 tomorrow)___________
    Daily: ___________2007_________2010__
    July25-26 ______ – 92,656 _____- 73,594
    July26-27 ______ – 93,750 _____ ? ? ?
    Next 5days @ 55__then: __4@ 107__4@ 80__12 @ 50__ 4@ 33__ 5@ 55__24 @ 14.5 K (K= 1,000)
    … As the JAXA revision was UP (if small) I predict a slight more melt tomorrow – – say, ahead of 2009 (80K) but behing 2007’s.

  184. 2010 passes 2009 for the 2nd time, but again, its a prelim value.

    Lots of blabbing going on here like the last two years about bad news and possible death spirals and “long term trends” (which is based off of a 30 year graph). Its pretty clear that 2007 is long gone and probably 2008 too due to its massive late melt that is unlikely this year.

    The numbers will be in only 6 weeks from now. So we’ll know. Pretty obvious at this point that the race is between 2009 and 2010 (and 2005 too).

  185. JAXA has updated their July 27th (final) value and indeed 2010 has passed 2009 by 4844 km^2.

    My current estimate for 2010 Arctic sea ice extent = 4.58E6 km^2 (standard deviation = 0.33E6 km^2).

  186. On your Arctic Sea Ice page, what’s happened with the 2007/2010 side by side cryosphere comparison graphics? The current one is for 7/22.

  187. R. Gates says:
    July 27, 2010 at 11:50 am
    Repsonse phlogiston:
    July 27, 2010 at 12:11 am

    Re-reading your earlier posting (July 5), you appeared at first sight to be suggesting that CO2 levels were themselves an attractor, but indeed your actual suggestion was that rising CO2 pushes the system across valleys or saddles in the phase space topography into new attractors. So I did misinterpret your suggestion.

    R. Gates says:
    July 5, 2010 at 8:06 am

    The 30% or so increase in CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution, up to around 390 ppm now, after 10,000 years or more of being in the range of 270-280 ppm is no trivial change in this GH gas. The climate regime that existed under the 270-280 ppm was its own attractor, and despite changes in the sun, which certainly created periods of warmer or cooler climate (i.e. the Maunder minimum or MWP), the CO2 remained constant. Now that we’ve seen an such a relatively large increase in CO2 over such a short period, one would have to expect a chaotic climate system to seek a new attractor, and since CO2 continues to rise, there may be several attractors along the way to wherever the final leveling off point is for CO2.

    However moving to the present discussion.

    CO2 (in the atmosphere) is a forcing agent, not a region of phase space for the climate. The rapid addition of CO2 to the atmosphere creates a new set of conditons for the climate, or a new phase space, but it is not a region of phase space in itself. My whole point about CO2 (and the sandpile analogy, which is quite appropriate when discussing climate) is that it can be a forcing agent.

    You propose that the magnitude and the rate of CO2 increase represent a forcing agent. But my point is that you are taking this argument “out of the air” and not backing it up with any evidence. There are well-studied physical and chemical systems exhibiting non-equilibrium pattern dynamics, such as the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction, and since these are lab chemistry experiments they can be well controlled with parameters understood sufficiently to model and simulate them. Of course our knowledge of climate parameters is far too sparse to allow such a level of analysis. However that does not mean we have to give up on any hope of meaningful analysis and confine ourselves to speculative arm-waving about attractors and phase space topography. Instead you can find a well understood physical system exhibiting nonequilibrium pattern behaviour, and draw a credible analysis between such a system and the climate analogy that you are making.

    Can you find a nonequilibrium pattern system in which addition of a gas, progressively increasing its concentration causes a tipping point and transition to a new attractor? The only published system I can think of where gas concentrations are involved is the platinum-catalysed oxidation of CO (the reaction that happens in your car’s catalytic convertor). This was one of the main parts of Matthias Bertram’s thesis (linked in the above post) and some subsequent published papers. Here changing the gas concentrations resulted in an increase in feedback in the system. Well fine – so perhaps here we have a CO2 analogy – CO2 is supposed to cause positive heat forcing feedback via atmospheric water and clouds. So maybe rising CO2 concentrations are an analogy of this system. But the problem is that the result that you get in this system is the opposite of what you are arguing – the increasing feedback, far from promoting non-equilibrium pattern behaviour, instead kills it off; the increasing gas-forced feedback changes the system from exhibiting complex emergent non-equilibrium patterns to simple monotonous periodic behaviour. Nonequilibrium pattern changes are not promoted – they are suppressed.

    A sandpile, in a windless room with no vibrations etc, is a stable system in equalibrium, far from the edge of chaos. Start adding new grains of sand, and things change. It becomes a dynamic system, with new inputs– it’s phase space is changing. This is no different than the climate system, which is a system of oceans, clouds, sunlight, etc. All systems can be pushed to the edge of chaos, at which point they might, with the tiniest of shoves, change into a different mode.

    So you do appreciate that a system must be driven to the edge of equilibrium for nonlinear emergent pattern to appear. However the analogy with climate contains a flaw – your sandpile analogy assumes a system at equilibrium that is driven by CO2 addition towards and eventually over the edge of equilibrium. But the climate is never at equilibrium. That is why we have winds, clouds and weather – heat is constantly trying to equilibriate between heating equator and cold poles and never getting anywhere close. (I would hate to live in a stagnant world at equilibrium with no winds and dead anoxic seas!) This has always been happening through earth’s history regardless of CO2 concentrations over a wide range (I’ll return to this point).

    I suggest you need to find a different analogy to the sand grains, one in which addition of gas to a continually nonequilibrium quasi-chaotic system changes for instance a feedback parameter. However one such studied system, the Pt-catalysed CO oxidation, gives the opposite result – suppression, not promotion, of nonlinear pattern and attractor behaviour.

    I don’t claim to be an expert (far from) on Chaos theory, but I know enough to know my analogies are generally valid.

    I’m not either, but from what I understand your analogy is inappropriate and a new one should be found.

    The resent surge in CO2, up 40% in just a few hundred years, is unique in the past 400,000 years at least:

    Your central point that the rate of increase of CO2 from 280 to 370 ppm in a half century or so is likely to force instability. But you give no evidence for this. Your emphasis on rate is probably due to the very obvious problem for AGW of very much higher CO2 concentrations in earth’s history – looking much further back than 400 k years to the Cambrian and before – with no associated runaway warming and catastrophe. Concentrations of 5000 ppm and higher were never associated with any evidence of forcing over any system thresholds and transition to quasi-chaotic behaviour. The system has always been quasi-chaotic with CO2 exerting little if any discernible effect on this. If you look at the published palaeoclimate record of temperature and CO2, on the scale of a billion years they both decline, but looking at scales of tens of million years there is no correlation, sometimes CO2 and temperatures move in sharply opposite directions. Note the global ice ages in the preCambrian and end-Ordovician with CO2 levels of 2000-5000 ppm. If CO2 was supposed to be directly forcing and controlling temperature, a much more intimate correlation would be required.

    Another important category of forcing in nonequilibrium pattern systems is periodic forcing of oscillatory systems. OK CO2 does oscillate if you look at the Mauna Loa record, but this trivial annual fluctuation is unlikely to be a player. An oscillatory and periodically forced nonequilibrium pattern system – such as the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction, is in fact a more credible climate analogy. Bertram uses the term “reactive medium” as a condition for nonlinear pattern in a periodically forced system. Annual CO2 variation is probably too fast (and far too small an effect) for the climate to be able to meaningfully react. The Milankovich cycles of tens of thousands of years or 100 k years may be too slow (except possibly for ocean cycles). However more likely candidates for periodic forcers of climate are the various solar variations. The 11 year sunspot cycle might be a possible periodic forcing. The 87 year Gleissberg cycle and the 210 year Suess cycles are also likely to have climate traction – and an interference product of the 87 and 210 year cycles is the 1470 year “Bond event” cycle. Such cycles have the potential to be periodic forcers of climate. And experimental systems such as the BZ reaction provide a credible analogy.

  188. phlogiston says:
    July 28, 2010 at 10:07 pm
    Can you find a nonequilibrium pattern system in which addition of a gas, progressively increasing its concentration causes a tipping point and transition to a new attractor?

    Yes, the thermokinetic oscillating reactions often known as ‘cool flames’. In the case of the atmosphere the effect of CO2 occurs via modification of the heat transfer. In the case of cool flames a very small change in the the heat transfer causes a bifurcation to a new ‘attractor’. For example the system could be at a stable node with a small temperature excess of about 10ºC at an reactor temperature of ~300ºC, an increase of reactor temperature of ~0.1ºC you’d get a jump to a limit cycle oscillation with an amplitude of a couple of hundred degrees.

  189. Phil. says:
    July 29, 2010 at 6:43 am

    Now that’s the spirit!

    Interesting – I wasn’t aware of the “cool flame” nonlinear model system (acetaldehyde oxidation in a continuously stirred tank reactor). From a which internet search I get the impression it is a system of rapid flux and relatively unstable, such that “in the immediate region of this bifurcation the system shows “indecision” or interspersed flames of each type for a short period” – so kind of hopping from one attractor to another quite readily. Also “in the regions of oscillatory cool flames the steady state is unstable”, although steady states appear possible by adjusting vessel residence times. These are quotes from the following paper:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2B-497YTR1-6H&_user=6224571&_coverDate=07/31/1984&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1416242803&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=6224571&md5=0e6daf463d89b814c9087928912efdc0

    This would be more analogous to atmospheric dynamics if the residence time of air was very short – i.e. the atmosphere was constantly outgassing from the earth and being lost by diffusion out into space. But I think it is a stretch to argue that the radiative heat balances in the atmosphere linked to CO2 content, which show slow changes and equilibrium like properties, can be modeled by such a dynamic and unstable system as the “cool flame”.

    The argument against AGW essentially is that while CO2 may change radiative balance by an Arrhenius type effect (depending on a subtle balance of IR and CO2 radiation, absorption and whether or not saturation occurs, or if the effect is linear or logarithmic), the effect of clouds and the hydrological cycle is (a) much more significant and of larger magnitude than the CO2 effect, and (b) exerts a negative feedback on small CO2 driven changes. If clouds and the hydrological cycle are a feedback to CO2 forcing, then the system cannot be modelled as if it was being driven by one forcing agent alone.

    One factor that one has to work against in trying to push a system to a new attractor is the nonlinear phenomenon – or law – of Lyapunov stability, an interesting kind of emergent equilibrium from nonequilibrium, which states that in a nonlinear pattern system where an attractor is established, the attractor will remain stable to perturbations of the system and changes to the forcing.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyapunov_stability

    A published example of Lyapunov stability can be found here:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TJ2-47TWRJN-1&_user=6224571&_coverDate=06/30/2004&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1416218771&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=6224571&md5=1a9dee2358b569d03b4f819722ac8345

    You are however correct that nonlinear pattern systems can transition between attractors due to changed parameters. Indeed some such systems have two or more attractors and periodically jump between them. A reference about a bistable system is:

    http://www.citeulike.org/article/7508611

    This author describes something called a “boundary crisis” or “basin crisis” at which the attractor set is changed. I guess what you are alluding to is something like this. BTW the current epoch of alternation between glacial and interglacial states in the earth’s climate seems very likely to be a bistable twin-attractor nonlinear pattern system. It is possible that the climate system might have a hierarchy of fractal like attractors (this is pure speculation) – the major two are glacial and interglacial, but within an interglacial temperature jumps between smaller scale closer attractors. Looking at the global troposphere or SST temperature curve, there is the appearance of jumping at discreet times between different levels. Bob Tisdale shows that a single ENSO cycle can push the global temperature up or down to a different “micro-regime”. These could be attractors of a sort. But – again – we need to find a more adequate model analogy – hard to find for something as complex and multifactorial as our climate.

  190. R Gates …… Now that it is late July, as you state at the end of your comment from July 5 can we have your ‘final forecast’ please ?

    R. Gates says:
    July 5, 2010 at 7:26 am
    Curious Yellow says:
    July 5, 2010 at 6:37 am
    The average melt for July over 2003-2009 rounded to nearest thousand was 92000 KM2 p/d. For August this was 53000 KM2. (No full month for September, so not calculated)
    The average melt for the 2 months July+August was 66,000 KM2.
    Using just the averages and adding an adjustment for for September, I anticipate the minimum extent for 2010 to be be 4.34 million KM2. Even though 2006 and 2007 were unusual years, my bet is on just the simple averages, not anticipating another unusual year

    ________________

    Very logical, and probably a decent estimate. I’m currently sticking with my 4.5 million sq. km, that I’ve been putting out since March, but will make a final forecast later in July when I see how the Arctic Dipole Anomaly is behaving.

  191. p.s.

    phlogiston says:
    July 29, 2010 at 11:59 pm
    Phil. says:
    July 29, 2010 at 6:43 am

    “Basin crisis” – sounds like something I experienced recently after a not-so-fresh seafood salad.

Comments are closed.