We all need a break from the Gore-a-thon, so here’s some cheering news. As I reported on Sept 13th, Sea Ice News: Arctic sea ice “may” have turned the corner sea ice appeared then to have turned the corner for the melt season. It looks even more certain now (especially with NSIDC announcing it).
Source: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png
Here’s the data, looks like the minimum was reached on 9/9/2011
09,01,2011,4734063
09,02,2011,4720781
09,03,2011,4683594
09,04,2011,4655156
09,05,2011,4617188
09,06,2011,4587969
09,07,2011,4561719
09,08,2011,4545000
09,09,2011,4526875 <
09,10,2011,4527813
09,11,2011,4537188
09,12,2011,4542656
09,13,2011,4589844
09,14,2011,4655000
And, by the JAXA data, there was no new record low.
Even NSIDC’s 5 day average is looking up. Way up.
From NSIDC just a few minutes ago: (it showed up while editing my first pass, thus I’ve edited this story within a few minutes of the original posting to reflect it).
Arctic sea ice at minimum extent
Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its lowest extent for the year. The minimum ice extent was the second lowest in the satellite record, after 2007, and continues the decadal trend of rapidly decreasing summer sea ice.
Overview of conditions
On September 9, 2011 sea ice extent dropped to 4.33 million square kilometers (1.67 million square miles). This appears to have been the lowest extent of the year, and may mark the point when sea ice begins its cold-season cycle of growth. However, a shift in wind patterns or late season melt could still push the ice extent lower.
This year’s minimum was 160,000 square kilometers (61,800 square miles) above the 2007 record minimum extent, and 2.38 million square kilometers (919,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum.
And NSIDC has avoided a new record low…yet in Gore’s CRP panel last night, the obscure University of Bremen dataset, never before touted by warmists, was trotted out as proof of another record low. Told ya so:
The answer to why such language might be used, perhaps prematurely in the face of other datasets which presently disagree, may be found in the proximity of the upcoming Climate Reality Project (aka the Gore-a-thon) on September 14-15. Al needs something to hold up as an example of gloom, since sea ice didn’t repeat the 2007 low in 2008, 2009, or 2010, and the Antarctic has not been cooperative with the melt meme at all, remaining boringly “normal” and even above normal last year.
We’ll know the answer when we see if this Bremen missive is included in Al’s upcoming presentation.
Last night in hour 1 of the CRP I noted:
Anthony Watts says:
I suspect the “views” counter now over 170K shows the number of attempted/completed connections, but doesn’t show the number of dropped.
Ah there’s the Arctic Sea Ice HITS A NEW RECORD – I was right in my recent sea ice news
This use of the Bremen press release is the worst example of alarmist cherry picking ever. For years, NSIDC is the authority they tout, now they were thrown under the bus before they could even announce whether they had a record low or not so that Gore could have a talking point.
As always, keep up to date on the WUWT sea ice page
Arctic sea ice reaches lowest extent for 2011
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html
REPLY: Ah wouldn’t you know it, right in the middle of editing. I’d checked the site just before starting to write the post, I’ve edited it to reflect the NSIDC announcement, thanks – Anthony
Looks early to me. I wonder what this winter will bring.
More Gore Effect….certainly a negative feedback!
I wonder how many of those 170k attempted connections were from sceptics wanting a laugh? I’ve yet to see any warmist news outlets (e.g. BBC, Guardian) give any mention to the Gore-a-thon. Looks like even the warmists wish Al would vanish in a puff of hot air.
This is really good news. It is yet another example of the Gore effect. Keep Gore on TV long enough and Miami will freeze.
So, this would mean the ARCUS WUWT prediction was correct? I am assuming that’s based on the JAXA values.
No, based on NSIDC, monthly average for Sept. I suspect ARCUS will have an announcement soon
It is too early to say whether it has turned, or whether this is just a blip and there will be some further ice loss during the course of the next week or so.
If it has truly turned the corner, then the end of the melt season has come a little early this year. So that will make 2011 quite an interesting year; the second most ice loss in the past 10 years, but arguably the minimum ice extent reached at the earliest date in September during the last 10 years.
It will be interesting to re-examine matters in the 4th week of September when they will be more certainty.
As well, the northern arctic temperatures took a nose dive recently and are now about 3 degrees below normal and almost 10 degrees below freezing. See
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
William Mason says:
September 15, 2011 at 11:13 am
Looks early to me. I wonder what this winter will bring.
My money is on a colder winter than last year!
Werner Brozek says:
September 15, 2011 at 11:29 am
As well, the northern arctic temperatures took a nose dive recently and are now about 3 degrees below normal and almost 10 degrees below freezing. See
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
===============================================
It will be interesting to see what color J. Hansen uses for coloring the arctic for this month.
Arctic ice volume, according to PIOMAS:
See http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
also http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2_CY.png?%3C?php%20echo%20time%28%29?
looks to be considerably lower than 2007, although extent may not reach those 2007 levels. Apparently much of the extent is of very thin ice.
Who won the prediction bet?
It ain’t over until September is over.
So too early to draw any conclusions about Sea Ice Extent.
I was hoping for another record low this year, but it didn’t happen. Sea ice extent must have been lower during the Medieval Warm Period. So this is nothing unusual.
It is interesting to compare the data from this year and 2007. While the extent (the parts of the Arctic ocean with at least 15% ice cover) is a little more this year, the area (the actual amount of ice cover) is quite similar. The images comparing the two years (http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/cryo_compare.jpg) show larger portions that have lower % of cover. In other words, there is a similar amount of ice on the surface, but it is more spread out this year than 2007.
As the NSIDC announcement stated, winds could still blow the loose ice together (reducing the extent) or blow the loose ice farther apart (increasing the extent). Of course, neither of these affects will change the AMOUNT of ice — only the location.
It would be interesting to see how differences in area vs extent might affect the refreezing and next year’s ice.
second lowest….means it has not melted more…..it still has not melted more……it has melted less
You can’t show “continued rapid decline” if it is not declining
In a normal world, someone might say it’s getting better…………….
James Sexton: “It will be interesting to see what color J. Hansen uses for coloring the arctic for this month.”
Well, he has every shade of red imaginable in his crayon box…..
Is there any correlation between the amount (extent or volume) of the Arctic Sea Ice and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Just wondering.
4.33 million square kilometers
Less than I expected, but more than 2007 by a good margin.
Let’s see, we know about long term cycles in temperature, but want to say that a very short time series like the satellite record has any significance. Show this all to me after we have 150+ years of satellite records (I could still be here 😉 you never know) and I’ll be impressed about “records”. This is still a baby record started at the end of the last cold spell of course the extent is going to show a trend downward. We may see this all turn around due to the vagaries of the various ocean circulation patterns, or we may see ice free northwest passage at some point and neither state amounts to a hill of beans as both are within variation observed in the past.
I’m not so interested in the final number as to the reason why it’s below average, or why it’s not in a death spiral as many have predicted.*
* That’s the thing with predictions. If you are foolish enough to put a concrete, falsifiable/verifiable prediction out there in the public domain, you deserve to get a little melted permafrost thrown on your face. Better to give a vague time-frame a decade or two in the future, when nobody remembers or cares what you predicted when. On the other hand, the major media which breathlessly reported your prediction can’t be bothered to report upon it’s accuracy.
Latitude says: September 15, 2011 at 11:56 am
“second lowest….means it has not melted more…..it still has not melted more……it has melted less”
1) If you believe the estimates of VOLUME, there is less volume than 2007, which would mean it has melted more … melted more … melted more.
2) Only a fool expects every year to set a record for least ice (or highest global temperature), even in a continually warming world. Come back in 5 years or 20 years and lets see how it is doing. I anticipate a trend toward less ice, but only time will tell if we are “turning a corner” or “pausing on the way down” or simply “settling at a new ‘normal’ “. Just like only time will tell if the global temperature is “turning a corner” or “pausing on the way up” or simply “settling at a new ‘normal’ “.
As a Biologist and Life-Advocate, I am a little sad that poorer weather for living things has to be celebrated as “good news.”
Instead of the graphs with several recent years from the same source I would like to see graphs in sources are compared. e.g. Bremen, IARC, DMI, etc. for each year.
iOW which track closely and which differ.
I have no idea how to do it myself. Might try, but don’t hold your breath for that.
Just two weeks ago, Tamino pronounced the Death Spiral alive and well saying “…this much is abundantly clear: the (downward) trend continues. The reason: global warming. But I’ll make another prediction: if 2011 doesn’t break the 2007 record, then some fake skeptics will refer to the continuing decline as a “recovery,” and/or find an excuse to explain away this year’s appallingly low value as a weather phenomenon in hopes of drawing attention away from the trend. Probably at WUWT.”
Any word from Dr. Death Spiral himself, Mark Serreze?
“Lady Life Grows says:
September 15, 2011 at 12:30 pm
As a Biologist and Life-Advocate, I am a little sad that poorer weather for living things has to be celebrated as “good news.””
I understand what you mean but remember it is the warmists who tell us a little warming will be catastrophic for those living things – so naturally we rejoice when it doesn’t warm. sarc/off
Ice core data shows that we are [melting into a pool of anthropogenic gunk].
Just thought I would post for Gates and save him some time. When he gets around to it, all he has to do is copy my comment and add his own phrase inside the brackets.
Bremen, on inspection, would seem to have the “best” record for any product using a micro wave sensor. It has the highest resolution. MASIE might also lay claim to the most accurate record as it has an even higher resolution and multiple sensors ( including visible).
However, when playing a game you pick your rules before the start. No calvin ball.
The focus on records is kind of silly, given the state of ice volume when the right weather hits.. the arctic 2007 record will fall.
not a death spiral, more like a bumpy road.. and it aint going up.
@ Tim Folkerts
“. Just like only time will tell if the global temperature is “turning a corner” or “pausing on the way up” or simply “settling at a new ‘normal’ “.
You left out, “or pausing on the way down to the next glaciation”, or was that what you meant by “turning a corner” ?
Wonder what the betting might be for October. The upturn might be steep and sustained.
@ Anthony, I think you said that the September poll would be the last one for some external reason I can’t remember. I think it would be interesting to carry on the WUWT readership poll for October and future months regardless. Yes ? No ?
I don’t even know why we are watching the sea ice data when they only have 32 years of data and when 5,000 to 7,000 years ago, the Arctic may have had less ice, been ice free, and periodically may have had less ice than today.
It’s sort of like watching the DJIA in that the high value of it doesn’t really indicate a robust economy.
I find the question ‘why’ to be at least as important as ‘what.’ As kramer indicates, we are focusing on the what, without applying any perspective. Who was it that coined the phrase about mapping a trend from one data point? Admittedly, 30 years isn’t one data point, except when you start thinking in geological terms.
Let’s assume Mosher is right. The trend is downward. So? The trend (what) doesn’t tell us why. Even if the trend fits the mythical AGW ‘consensus,’ it still does not mean the ‘consensus’ is correct.
Steven Mosher says:
September 15, 2011 at 1:02 pm
“…………
However, when playing a game you pick your rules before the start. No calvin ball.
The focus on records is kind of silly, given the state of ice volume when the right weather hits.. the arctic 2007 record will fall.
not a death spiral, more like a bumpy road.. and it aint going up.”
=======================================================================
Hmm, I’d wait until this year’s maximum is hit. I suspect it may surprise a great many people this year.
Gore makes a practice of standing in a “cherry picker,” doesn’t he?
(Josh should draw a cartoon of him nearby a cherry tree with cherry stains around his lips and saying “I didn’t pick a cherry” to his scowling father below, while crossing his fingers behind his back.)
Oops — revise the above so that Gore is saying, “What, me cherry-pick?”
“Tim Folkerts says:
September 15, 2011 at 12:24 pm
2) Only a fool expects every year to set a record for least ice (or highest global temperature), even in a continually warming world. Come back in 5 years or 20 years and lets see how it is doing.”
I am sure we would all happily accommodate your political prognostication were it not for the fact that legislation has been and continues to be enacted in knee jerk reaction to a slew of failed predictions of which death spiral was but one.
Perhaps you would wish to enlighten us as to which particular law, passed for the mitigation of CO2, has benefited mankind in any material way?
Failing that , you could lobby the politicians and parliaments of Europe and the USA to repeal or delay implementation of said legislation for 5 to 20 years whilst we see if the sky falls in.
Tim Folkerts says:
September 15, 2011 at 12:24 pm
“Come back in 5 years or 20 years and lets see how it is doing”
I agree, Lets look at the state of arctic in 10 or 20 years and decide if some action is required. In the mean time, please don’t ask me to pay carbon taxes.
Russ
roger says: “I am sure we would all happily accommodate your political prognostication… ”
What did I say that was in the least political? I did make a prognostication about future ice levels (that they will continue to trend downward), but I have never considered the physical state of water to be a political issue.
I try to avoid politics and personalities in favor of discussing data and science. The science, as I see it at the simplest level, says that — everything else being equal — more CO2 will lead to higher temperatures. This conclusion is pretty sure — I would call it “settled science”. Among other things, this would logically lead to less Arctic ice (as has indeed been observed for both extent and volume).
The issue of what ELSE might be affecting temperatures is fascinating, but much of that is NOT “settled science”.
Political and economical decisions about how to deal with CO2 (or CH4 or soot or …. ) are completely different issues with myriad opinions.
Me thinks the Grímsvötn eruption of May 21 had some to do with the ice this year. The initial explosion of ejecta was quickly spent and it soon suffered from anejaculation. The stratosphere did not receive a big load, but the ice did. Had the stratosphere received a large blast the sun would have been dimmed instead of shining on all that dirty ice.
Lady Life Grows says:
September 15, 2011 at 12:30 pm
As a Biologist and Life-Advocate, I am a little sad that poorer weather for living things has to be celebrated as “good news.”
I often resent that the warmists have so distorted the argument that to effectively counter them means you are pressured to become a cheerleader for ice. Ice, other than in a nice highball, is seldom our friend. Personally I think the whole controversy about what the sea ice in the Arctic is doing or will do in the future is a waste of time, other than being the climate equivalent of fantasy football i e strictly for entertainment purposes. Other than all the ballyhoo on blogs and news shows I can’t think of a single thing in my personal environment that would provide the slightest clue about what has occurred with the Arctic sea ice over the last 30 years.
I find it bizarre that folk worry about the Arctic melting a bit, the Antarctic yes the Arctic, who cares except the poor Polar Bears?
Ice melting means that we haven’t quite turned the corner from the LAST ICE AGE, more ice would be a bigger problem as it would be heralding a NEW ICE AGE. I know which I prefer.
As it is the Warmists seem to have forgotten that big lump of ice down South…
@richard verney
As you point out, the trend is not negative for four plus years, now. I’d say we’ve definitely turned the corner and can expect the trend to go more positive.
“the obscure University of Bremen dataset, never before touted by warmists, “
Well, you’re happy to use it, when it shows a rise.
REPLY: Oh puhleeze Nick, that was just to put a picture on top of an article from Judith Curry. I made no claims other than it was on track for a record high, and later used other available datasets to show the issue.
I’ll also point out that I use it EVERY DAY, along with many other available datasets on the WUWT Sea ice page. I don’t all of the sudden choose one and ignore all the others like Mr. Romm and Mr. Gore does. Put your dunce cap on and go troll in the corner. You are really getting to be tiringly dour. – Anthony
Baby Ice dabbles and babbles in the bathwater.
===============
Watching this Ice opera reminds me of a “Rocky” movie..(Arctic ice is Rocky)..rocky still gets pummeled round after round after his near knockout in round 3…He refuses to go down & gets up ready to roll each round (Fall)….Its round 9 & he comes out SWINGING (incredible early upswing since sept 9th)…Dude he is fighting (R. Gates) is on the ropes wild eyed & confused….Dude thinks to himself….How can Rocky keep coming like that?!!!!!..
Stay tuned!!
“As always, keep up to date on the WUWT sea ice page.”
======
It is as it ever was.
Where the ‘ell is Gates anyway? My thinkolator suggests I call home and make sure he hasn’t any ideas of the most stunningly beautiful woman in the world! Call home… He’s untrustworthy…
Not only has the corner been turned here, but NOAA has officially announced the return of la Nina.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110908_lanina.html
Now here’s a real cherry picker!
My eyballs detect a general trend in minimum extent dates becoming earlier and earlier.
Is there already a graph of day-of-year of minimum and maximum extent against year?
A third axis, being the area of ice cover on those days could provide an interesting picture.
Intrade may be setting up a betting “market” on the arctic ice extent maximum for 2012.
David Wendt beat me to it, but it bears repeating methinks.
You know we live in some twisted altered reality when those who argue that CO2 increases are not causing catastrophic warming must cheer the news of lower temperature indicators, despite lower temperatures being the one kind of climate change that our planet has repeatedly experienced in the past, and which was the one and only type of climate change that was catastrophic to life on the planet.
Caught some Canadian news (CTV) which was very slippery about this. Their news ticker said the ice extent was ‘just about’ as low as it has ever been.
So, meaningless but still scary for the clueless… but technically ‘just about’ true.
It is just about as warm now as it was in 1880 too.
Here’s an update to the data above. The *INTERIM* data for the 15th is as follows.
09,15,2011,4692656
That’s a rise of 37,656 km^2 above the number for the 14th. A few notes…
1) Interim IARC JAXA daily numbers are released just after 03Z (11 PM EDT)
2) Final IARC JAXA daily numbers are released just after 14Z (10 AM EDT)
3) For the past while, the final number has generally been higher than the interim number, so it’s possible that the 15th may end up above 4.7 million
@ Lady Life, Dave and David………..
Don’t let them take that from you. Cheer for the warming and laugh at their silly fears. Their unadulterated doltish positions cause us to naturally be repulsed by their thoughts. The idiocy from the people that embrace the CAGW hypothesis won’t change even if it does cool…… it has been cooling for a decade and hasn’t changed their view other than to say, “see! It’s snowing more! That’s a sign of climate change!”
If there is anything that would change these imbecilic Malthusian minds, it would be the inescapable truth that warmth is beneficial to mankind. The negative will not prove it to them.
While we all know it makes no difference to Nature how we feel about it, it gives me some comfort to know that on a warm day, a small minority of batshit crazy people went foaming-at-the-mouth insane and likely prohibited them from reproducing. On warm days like that, I bask. It is like a Christian, such as myself, finding an appreciation for Darwin.
James
If this is for real, it’s great news, but before you get too excited, take another look at 2010. This is very early for the turn and there is a lot of low concentration ice. A change in the weather could cause another dip downwards.
Steven Mosher says:
September 15, 2011 at 1:02 pm
not a death spiral, more like a bumpy road.. and it aint going up.
So what? Even if Arctic sea ice continues to not trend upwards, what are you suggesting the response should be? If the entire western world could completely eliminate the generation of CO2, which the Kyoto debacle clearly proved it can’t and won’t, what difference would it make? I think the answer is obviously no statistically measurable difference whatsoever. While CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and warmists (or lukewarmists) like to beat the drum that human generated CO2 causes global warming, the reality is that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas and that there is insufficient understanding of just how big the effect of CO2 is relative to other phenomena. The AGW scientific community is aggressively denying that there could be an explanation other than human-generated CO2 for climate change, which makes me wonder just who the real climate deniers are. Billions could be spent on pet projects like Solyndra and it would not make a bit of difference, except pad the pockets of the recipients of the subsidies. Money should not be thrown at any large-scale projects involving such technologies unless they can first be proven to be economically viable over their entire life cycle. Other than that, humanity should adapt to the climate however it changes, rather than suffer delusions that climate or can even should be changed by our behaviour.
Professor Murry Salby of Macquarie Uni by study of Carbon dioxide isotopes has shown that the modest rise in CO2 in the past century is NOT from human activity and more probably parallels the 6-800 year delayed rise after an ice age-this time maybe the Little Ice Age. So while Arctic Sea Ice is a lot of fun and confirms that Al Gore is an ex-politician with no comprehension of science it is not required to confirm that a rise in CO2 is NOT ANTHROPOGENIC. Thank you ballboys! Geoff Broadbent
Geoffrey Donald Broadbent says:
September 15, 2011 at 10:25 pm
Professor Murry Salby of Macquarie Uni by study of Carbon dioxide isotopes has shown that the modest rise in CO2 in the past century is NOT from human activity
=====================================================
Geoffrey, it is traditional to provide links when making such assertions. Oddly, the warmista won’t take us at our word that this is true!
GDB;
So the CO2 rise really may be the delayed bump from the MWP? I’ve joked about that from time to time. If true, it’s both ironically hilarious and hilariously ironic.
I luv it.
If it turns out that this years minimum extent did occur on the 9th, it is not unusual both 2002 and 2008 minimums were on the 9th:-
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
>>> tallbloke says: September 15, 2011 at 12:04 pm
>>>4.33 million square kilometers
>>>Less than I expected, but more than 2007 by a good margin.
Not according to the Daily Mail which has a wonderful article on this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2036757/The-great-thaw-Arctic-ice-levels-record-low.html
The title of the article is:
“The Great Thaw: Arctic sea ice levels shrink to lowest since records began”
And goes on to say:
“It fell below 4.6 million sq km last week with two weeks of the melt season still to go, compared with the record low of 4.13 million sq km in 2007.”
Yeah ! – well done Daily Mail – makes a whole load of sense.
.
Yawn. Wake me up when the Viking graveyards in Greenland aren’t permafrost. Until graves can be hand-dug again, anyone who uses the word “unprecidented” is
A.) A fool
B.) Deluded
C.) A con-artist
D.) All of the above
I wonder if anyone can explain why http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png shows Antarctic sea ice extent above the 1979-2000 average whereas http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png shows Southern Hemisphere sea ice anomaly -0.389 below 1979-2008 mean. Even if there is a perceptible difference between the average and mean I would have thought that both charts would show a state of sea ice extent above the average/mean.
Perhaps NSIDC ought to compose a third graph showing combined N/S sea ice extent compared with 1979-2000 average and/or maybe they ought to actually re-compute the average to 1979-2010 to get a proper 30 year stretch. Same for Arctic. Perhaps they don’t want to do this as the graphs would not so clearly show a “death march towards the inevitable ice free Arctic summer”.
John Peter,
Between 2000-2008, the antarctic ice was relatively large, so the average from 1979-2008 is higher than the average from just 1979-2000. If you added the average from 1979-2008 to the plot, it would be higher than the current “average line” drawn on the plot. Presumably the current ice extend is between those two lines, so it is above the 1979-2000 average, but below the 1979-2008 average.
And now we should see the results of the “catastrophic” low 2011 sea-ice levels, just like in 2007.
Eco-fascists should be racing northward to document the slaughter — Arctic beaches littered w/carcasses of polar bears, seals, fish, whales — there’s no hiding from the open water. Scorched tundra along the now ice-free shores.
Do I really need a /sarc tag?
Could it be that the ice is rebounding because the Gulf Stream is no longer functioning….thus the warm water and air that traveled with this current is no longer being delivered to northern areas?
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/ofs/viewer.shtml?-natl-cur-0-large-rundate=latest
Pat says:
September 16, 2011 at 7:41 am
Could it be that the ice is rebounding because the Gulf Stream is no longer functioning….thus the warm water and air that traveled with this current is no longer being delivered to northern areas?
In a word, no. If the gulf stream was no longer functioning, it would be widely reported and there would be lots of other obvious evidence.
Lady Life Grows says:
September 15, 2011 at 12:30 pm
As a Biologist and Life-Advocate, I am a little sad that poorer weather for living things has to be celebrated as “good news.”
And better weather is celebrated as “bad news”.
Could it be that the ice is rebounding because the Gulf Stream is no longer functioning….thus the warm water and air that traveled with this current is no longer being delivered to northern areas?
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/ofs/viewer.shtml?-natl-cur-0-large-rundate=latest
Eh! I don’t think this years melt season can be described as a rebound.
With the dramatic recovery in the past few days in both area and extent, it makes me wonder if there wasn’t a whole lot of area that was at ~14% ice concentration and now that has frozen up enough to bump back into the picture on the graphs. Regardless, it is shooting up quickly which bodes well for next year.
Caleb says on September 16, 2011 at 4:39 am
E.) A poor speller
Fixed that for you.
Given the recent sharp upward turn in sea ice, it was quite ironic to hear NPR’s rush this morning to get the news out about the low ice numbers, similar to 2007. -RS
Looks like the remaining pole cam may have gone kaput for the year. Still shows 14-SEP and the view has not changed since the 14th. Based on that view the snow pack was within inches of the cam at the time, so it would not be a surprise if it is done for. One more good dump would have done it.
RE: Richard Sharpe says:
September 16, 2011 at 9:51 am
Thanks. I freely admit I am a poor speller. During spelling classes I studied cloudz. Also during all other classes. That is why I’m such a meetiorojikal expirt.
In the Cryosphere today images the yellow has mostly turned to red except at a thin outer margin. Nearly all the data sources here at WUWT show sharp uptick in both extent and area (including Bremen, with the exception of only extent from Nansen Roos). Thus it seems we are past minimum, and the ice recovery already has momentum.
Geoffrey Broadbent @ here,
The LIA began about 500 years ago and peaked a couple of times after that. If it had the same impact that the major ice ages did, that would lower CO2 levels. CO2 rose in response to warming, and some have posited that he modern rise in CO2 is due to the Medieval Warm Period.
But that comparison is hopelessly flawed anyway. Atmospheric CO2 increased by 100ppm over 5000 years during the warming out of the last ice age, and the temperature of the planet increased by ~6 degrees C. In the modern era we’ve had a 100ppm increase in CO2 over 150 years – that’s 30 times faster than natural CO2 accumulation out of the last great ice age. Furthermore, the Medieval Warm Period was, at most, a 3C rise (but probably no more warm than today – a 1C rise), and it was not sustained like the last rise to interglacial – a tenth of the time, and less than half the temperature rise. No matter how you look at it, the modern CO2 rise simply doesn’t compare to the natural accumulation from the last ice age. The modern rise is extremely rapid in comparison, and has a much smaller natural ‘trigger’.
Salby is woefully wrong about CO2 accumulation. He has neglected to explain where all the anthropogenic CO2 went. We’ve burned more than enough fossil fuel to account for the rise of the last 150 years. An increase of 2ppm (the current average rate of accumulation per year) requires 15 billion tonnes of CO2. We release about 30 billion tonnes per annum (on average). It’s us putting it there, even while the biosphere.absorbs half of it.