Shades of Zwally – Vision Prize calls for ‘ice free Arctic’ predictions – cast your vote

People send me stuff.

Today, just over two months away from the end of summer, when NASA’s Jay Zwally famously predicted (with an assist from AP’s Seth Borenstein): “…the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012″ and we are nowhere near that becoming true, I get sent a contest being solicited by the people who run “Vision Prize” in San Francisco. I had to chuckle at this.

CALL FOR PARTICIPATION: When will the Arctic Sea become free of summer
floating ice?

Dear Climate Scientist,

You have probably already seen the cover story of last month’s  Economist on the Arctic: The vanishing north.  The Vision Prize [online poll of climate scientists](http://visionprize.com/) is currently asking this related question:

**When (if ever) will the Arctic Sea become completely free of summer floating ice?**

Please [Sign Up](http://visionprize.com/users/new) now to submit your prediction and join [more than 200 of your colleagues](http://visionprize.com/participants#expertise) participating in this new climate risk communication project. Participation is free and takes just a few minutes. Thanks in advance for your support.

Vision Prize is affiliated with researchers at Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Minnesota Institute on the Environment, and is strictly nonpartisan.

Vision Prize | Box 7775 #20915 | San Francisco CA USA | 94120

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

The bottom of the original email allows the recipient to forward to a friend, so by doing so they make this a contest open to everyone.Lest some of our vocal detractors cry “foul” I’ll point out this entry in their “roster of experts“:

Glenn Tamblyn
Skepticalscience.com; (Australia); Licensed professional engineer – commercial; Mechanical Engineering; Industry – Other;

Dana Nuccitelli
Tetra Tech, Inc.; (United States); Other scientific or technical – commercial; Environmental Science, Physics; Industry – Environmental Services; climate science

Apparently, they’ll take anonymous predictions too:

puffycloud
University of Washington; (United States); Graduate student; climate variability and change; Academia – Earth Sciences; atmospheric science

They want predictions, so let’s give them some, signup here:

Please [Sign Up](http://visionprize.com/users/new) now to submit your prediction

I signed up, and the confirmation email to activate my account went immediately to SPAM, so you may have to fish it out of your own account.

Even though they’ll let members of a blog that revises history on a regular basis and treats professional scientists with unprofessional attacks and anonymous grad students in, apparently, they don’t just let anybody in. Only the anointed  perhaps? This is what I got:

They are heavily weighted with UW and other faculty, according to their online live profile:

It will be interesting to see if they are biased or open and whether I get to join the “players”.

I urge WUWT readers to sign up and report your acceptances or rejections below.

About these ads

97 thoughts on “Shades of Zwally – Vision Prize calls for ‘ice free Arctic’ predictions – cast your vote

  1. They may have exceptionally high standards, like the UCS… and may require a valid credit card for verification of Climate Scientist ranking.

  2. I think “Visionprize” has been captured by denialists who are trying to force experts to reveal their lack of expertise. It will be interesting to observe whether any of the well known warmists dare to offer a specific forecast.

  3. Would that be ice free or “ice free = less than 1 million square kilometers of floating ice”?

  4. Wrong question. A better question is: why do CO2 molecules congregate only up north? The Antarctic is gaining ice. And the Antarctic holds 90% of the planet’s ice.

    The plain fact is that wind and ocean currents are the reason for declining Arctic sea ice.

    And we cannot trust the organizations doing the measurements. They certainly do not admit that the Arctic has been ice free in the past.

    So relax. Even though the less than 10% of the planet’s ice in the Arctic, which has recently declined due to wind and ocean currents, the 90% of the planet’s ice in the Antarctic keeps global ice totals pretty much the same.

  5. Personally I think that an Arctic that is/isnot ice free, will be the major turning point in climate science. Joe Public can understand that if the Arctic is ice free than warming has occurred, but he will also realise that if predictions have been made that say the Arctic will definitely be ice free by 2012, those who predicted it will have a lot of squirming to do if sea ice is still present. Joe Public will simply not believe anything else they say.
    I think the jury’s out as to whether mohatdebos is right about denialists taking it over. I think it is warmists trying to regroup and rein in the nutters who have predicted an ice free Arctic within a period that people will remember, eg this year, because it ain’t gonna happen!

  6. Please communicate this offer to Kenji… He’s a member of that concerned scientists bunch…

  7. Looking at their pages – and mainly at the page with results from the previous round (http://visionprize.com/results) I actually believe they have no problems with openness. Looking at the answers, I find them surprisingly un-alarming. There’s even a funny discrepancy where most people believe earth will warm up by 2-3°C at 550 ppm CO2, most people believe 550 ppm CO2 will be reached around 2050, and yet most people believe Earth will warm up only 1.5-2°C till 2050. But that’s actually perfectly normal in the world of statistics.

    I don’t like the selection of questions, in my opinion they could have picked better ones – but that’s actually not very important.

    The purpose of this site is clearly not doing science by vote. I believe they will have no problems with publishing results of further rounds even if they were totally skeptical towards AGW (current ones are skeptical enough IMO although many people here won’t agree). Most probably they don’t actually care what selections people make, what they care about is how their opinions change over time.

  8. Smokey, Smokey, Smokey… Everyone knows that heat rises, therefore all the extra heat in the atmosphere and oceans is rising to the top of the world and melting the Arctic ice.

  9. In reply to Smokey comment:July 19, 2012 at 10:25 am
    “Wrong question. A better question is: why do CO2 molecules congregate only up north? The Antarctic is gaining ice. And the Antarctic holds 90% of the planet’s ice.”

    The warming in the Arctic is due to changes in planetary cloud cover (less cloud cover). The albedo of the Antarctic Icesheet is greater than clouds so an increase in cloud cover in the Antarctic results in warming due to the greenhouse affect of water in the clouds. The phenomena where the Arctic warms and Antarctic cools is called the polar see-saw.

    The following is link to Svensmark’s paper that presents an analysis of top of the atmosphere radiation data to support the above assertion.

    P.S. There is a delay of 10 to 12 years from the interruption in the solar magnetic cycle and the start of cooling in the Arctic. I would expect to see some evidence of cooling in the Arctic winter 2012/2013

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0612145.pdf

    The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays

    Satellite data from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) are here used to calculate the changes in surface temperatures at all latitudes, due to small percentage changes in cloudiness. The results match the observed contrasts in temperature changes, globally and in Antarctica. Evidently clouds do not just respond passively to climate changes but take an active part in the forcing, in accordance with changes in the solar magnetic field that vary the cosmic-ray flux.

    …temperatures in the ice sheets spanning the past 6000 years show Antarctica repeatedly warming when Greenland cooled, and vice versa (Fig. 1) [13, 14]. North-south oscillations of greater amplitude associated with Dansgaard-Oeschger events are evident in oxygenisotope data from the Wurm-Wisconsin glaciation[15]. The phenomenon has been called the polar see-saw[15, 16], but that implies a north-south symmetry that is absent.Greenland is better coupled to global temperatures than Antarctica is, and the fulcrum of the temperature swings is near the Antarctic Circle. A more apt term for the effect is the Antarctic climate anomaly.

  10. Does anyone have a link to the entire statement made by Zwally? I’m actually quite interested in reading all of what he said. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated!!!

  11. There should also be vote for how fast will the melted ice refreeze after the summer melt. They DO realize that the ice melt refreezes, don’t they?? (I guess I should make any assumptions when it comes to climate scientists…).

  12. I say it will be ice free in the summer some time in the next 1.5 million years +/- 250,000.

    Larry

  13. Does anyone have a link to the entire statement made by Zwally? I’m actually quite interested in reading all of what he said. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated!!!

    Sure. There’s a link at the top …. This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.

    Now, he was writing at the end of the 2007 ice melt season, when the ice extent fell precipitously.

    Zwally was observing that, should the summer ice cover continue to decline at that rate every year, then a nearly ice free Arctic was just 5 years off. We now know that the 2007 decline was an outlier, helped along by anomalous wind patterns and the rate of change has actually reverted back nearer to its long term trend, in other words the decrease has not continued at that rate, although last year’s minimum was within the error bars of 2007.

    So Zwally included 2 conditions – IF the rate of change in 2007 was repeated Then the Arctic COULD be nearly ice free in summer 2012. His condition has not been met and so we will not see the second half of his prediction transpire. All reasonable stuff from a reasonable scientist, but my prediction is we will see a big and unjustifiable FAIL! around here come September …..

  14. “How To Make Money Off Of Global Warming Fears”

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/10/19/how-to-make-money-off-of-global-warming-fears/

    “Sometimes you might get lucky and discover a deluded alarmist who has beat you to the punch and offered such a bet on his or her own volition. For example, I just stumbled across this blog post from Joe Romm offering to bet even money that the Arctic Ocean will be ice-free by the year 2020. Talk about taking candy from a baby! I will be contacting Joe immediately. I urge all readers of this column to do the same.”

  15. At the end of their Timeline page:
    “VISION PRIZE
    HYPOTHESIS: Incentivized polls that draw on Bayesian reasoning can be used to generate predictions that outperform consensus-based polls in domains where expertise matters – like atmospheric CO2.”

    I wonder how they measure expertise on atmospheric CO2, so they know that it matters and that those predictions outperform. Or are they saying that expertise herds atmospheric CO2?

    They describe their non-consensus-polling method here:

    http://visionprize.com/faq#method

    I haven’t seen mention of the source of their funding, nor what methods have been, or will be, used to study what this project is doing.

  16. Funny that the Alarmists can no longer get away with their narrative concerning temperatures, tropical storms, vanishing winters. The Alarmists’ obsession with Artic ice will last only until it is obvious that Artic ice will not go away. I suppose the next obsession will be rising sea levels, or the mass extinction of bumble bees.

  17. Something that Anthony and I have been requesting for some time is that the NSIDC has finally made available their daily sea ice extent data. Easy to use CSV format.

    Use a five day moving/trailing average with this data to get to how the NSIDC is now recording it (I agree with this but would use a centred moving average which is then two days behind but more reflective of the proper date).

    ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/

    I don’t know how long this has been available but I don’t think anyone has mentioned it before.

  18. I signed up and now have 24 agonising hours to endure before I know if they accept me or not. Oh, the suspense….

  19. “So Zwally included 2 conditions – IF the rate of change in 2007 was repeated Then the Arctic COULD be nearly ice free in summer 2012. His condition has not been met and so we will not see the second half of his prediction transpire. All reasonable stuff from a reasonable scientist, but my prediction is we will see a big and unjustifiable FAIL! around here come September …..”

    I don’t think that qualifies as a ‘prediction’ at all, given the use of ‘could’. Use of ‘could’ in the outcome portion of the ‘prediction’ means that even if the precondition is fulfilled ( the 2007 rate of change is repeated), any amount of ice (or no ice at all) could be said to fulfill the ‘prediction’. so I don’t think it’s all that ‘reasonable’ personally.

    FYI, I don’t believe that ‘could’, as used in that construct can rightly be said to be a ‘condition’. It’s part of the outcome of the prediction, not the conditions.

  20. Thank you for the response, Phil. I had seen the quote that you referenced. I am mostly interested in what Zwally himself said immediately prior/after the sentence you referenced. I have been doing a lot of searches online, but cannot seem to find the more complete quote. I will keep looking!!!

  21. Phil Clarke says:
    July 19, 2012 at 11:32 am (Edit)
    Does anyone have a link to the entire statement made by Zwally? I’m actually quite interested in reading all of what he said. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated!!!

    Sure. There’s a link at the top …. This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: Phil Clarke says:
    July 19, 2012 at 11:32 am (Edit)
    Does anyone have a link to the entire statement made by Zwally? I’m actually quite interested in reading all of what he said. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated!!!

    Sure. There’s a link at the top …. This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.

    #############

    Thanks for pointing that out Phil. It really does no good to misrepresent your opponents positions. Consider this: Imagine if Bob Tisdale said ” If El nino develops, the global temperature would go up” Imagine then that an El nino did not develop. and temperatures stayed about the same. Would anyone here criticize Bob? I hope not. Zwaly spoke conditionally. Damn the press for not pushing him on this aspect. Damn the press for not asking ” well, will this rate continue?” Criticize Zwally for only presenting the worse possible case.

    Zwally should have told a more complete story

    “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions. At the long term rate the arctic will be ice free in 20xx.”

    So in all fairness one can hold him and the press responsible for emphasizing the worst case. He had a choice. Scientifically, however, you need to look at the conditional he offered.

  22. dccowboy says:
    July 19, 2012 at 12:14 pm (Edit)
    That and I’m not sure what the quantifiable value of ‘nearly’ is in this context.

    ######################

    That question has been asked a lot. Instead of Ice free folks now say something like Area less than 1 million sq km.

    That’s not far away. Concentration and volume ( what really matters ) is being dealt crushing blows. The next year with weather and wind like 2007 will do the trick.

    2020: take the under bet

  23. Mike Lewis says:
    July 19, 2012 at 10:58 am
    Smokey, Smokey, Smokey… Everyone knows that heat rises, therefore all the extra heat in the atmosphere and oceans is rising to the top of the world and melting the Arctic ice.
    ————————-

    ….. and there was I thinking it was because CO2 is upside down in the Southern Hemisphere, thereby causing cooling. Silly me.

  24. Engineering Vision Prize: Given a limitless supply of climate scientists with blowtorches, (a) How many tonnes of butane would it take to melt all the ice in the Arctic? (b) How long would it take?

  25. Smokey says: “Wrong question.”
    Too bad you then proceed to give the wrong answer!

    “The Antarctic is gaining ice. And the Antarctic holds 90% of the planet’s ice. [With a link to an impressive looking graph.]”

    1) The graph is for “May” extent. Hmmm … why do you suppose that ONE month was selected, rather than any other month, or the data for all months? You don’t suppose they cherry-picked May because it shows the steepest gain for Antarctic ice AND the smallest drop for Arctic Ice? The annual change is about 50% less in the south and about 50% more in the north.

    2) You are comparing apples and oranges — sea ice vs land ice. The graph is sea ice, which does show a modest gain. However, when you say “the Antarctic holds 90% of the planet’s ice”, you are clearly referencing land ice. And the land ice has been declining steadily since 2003 (when accurate satellite measurements started). http://ess.uci.edu/researchgrp/velicogna/files/slide2.jpg This decline in land ice outweighs any small gain in sea ice.

  26. Phil Clarke says:
    July 19, 2012 at 11:32 am

    “Zwally was observing that, should the summer ice cover continue to decline at that rate every year, then a nearly ice free Arctic was just 5 years off. [...]
    So Zwally included 2 conditions – IF the rate of change in 2007 was repeated Then the Arctic COULD be nearly ice free in summer 2012. His condition has not been met and so we will not see the second half of his prediction transpire. All reasonable stuff from a reasonable scientist, but my prediction is we will see a big and unjustifiable FAIL! around here come September …..”

    So we can conclude
    a) That’s only one condition. But then, I’m also convinced that there’s only one Kilimanjaro.
    a) we need highly paid government scientists to do linear interpolation. Layman can’t do that because they’re not climate scientists.
    b) Just as he has explicit preconditions in his prophecy, the warmist scientists in general have an implicit precondition in their prophecies: IF our models have predicitive skill. Notice that this already failed for the observed timeframe.

  27. @PhilInCalifornia – I hadn’t thought about the CO2 being upside down. It’s worse than I thought!!

  28. We have a drought on par with the mid 1950’s I suspect we will have Arctic ice like in the mid 1950’s . Now where are those submarine pictures from the mid to late 1950’s showing very little ice at the north pole ?

  29. It might be helpful in such an important debate if the people contributing actually looked at the data. Most people contributing to WUWT and other similar sites don’t seem interested in the evidence.

    Cryosphere Today is reporting that currently (July 19th 2012) arctic sea ice is over 2 million km2 below the 1989-2008 mean.

    Arctic sea ice area this year is already lower than almost all the September minimums at the start of the satellite record in the 1970s and 1980s.

    The anomaly this summer has now been at or below previous record levels for nearly 2 months.

    Looking at the NSIDC September plot from the start of the satellite record, on the linear trend line they use, the arctic will be largely ice free in September in about 2065;
    on the current rate of decline (tangent to the curve) by about 2030;
    or if the acceleration in decline seen since the late 1990s persists, by about 2019.

    So take your pick.

    The evidence points strongly to a major change taking place in the arctic. Whether its “alarmist” to think this is serious is subjective.

    The point is, it is happening. The arctic is warming faster than any other region on the planet and the most likely cause of that is climate change caused by increasing CO2 levels.

    Both a rapidly warming arctic and a generally warming world have been predicted as a consequence of a major rise in CO2 concentration since the 1970s and before – long before the media got hold of the issue and even longer before the climate change sceptic community got going.

    Forget dodgy models, who said what, leaked e-mails and all the other guff. Look at the data.

  30. James Abbott says:
    Forget dodgy models, who said what, leaked e-mails and all the other guff. Look at the data.

    Good idea! If only we could, because apparently the scientific method of openness and a federal law about freedom of information don’t apply to certain climate scientists.

  31. Steven Mosher says:

    July 19, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    “That question has been asked a lot. Instead of Ice free folks now say something like Area less than 1 million sq km.

    That’s not far away. Concentration and volume ( what really matters ) is being dealt crushing blows. The next year with weather and wind like 2007 will do the trick.

    2020: take the under bet”
    ============
    Does this mean we can forego the windmill craze, or will it only hasten the outcome ?

  32. James Abbott says:
    July 19, 2012 at 2:30 pm

    No, the “Arctic” is not getting hotter faster than any other part of the planet. ["Parts" of the central Canada tundra have been calculated (by the self-serving self-funding NASA-GISS to further serve its political interests and continued funding) to be 1-2 degrees warmer than a previous homogenized value of re-calculated values.] But these central Canada tundra regions are NOT the regions passing warmer air to the Arctic ocean: the Arctic Ocean is 15 to 20 degrees further north than these mid_Canada plant-covered regions where the temperature is (assumed) to be warmer than before.
    But up north?
    Where the Arctic Ocean actually IS when sea ice is at a minimum (further than 80 north latitude at a sea ice minimum of 4 million km2)?

    Up at 80 north altitude, through the entire summer melting season the DMI-measured temperatures since 1958 have not not increased “faster than anywhere else”, they have not been steady since 1958, they have been decreasing since 1958.

    Furthermore, not only have summer temperatures at 80 north latitude – during the period since 1958 when CO2 has increased – been decreasing, as CO2 increased during the period the actual Arctic temperatures have been decreasing FASTER the higher the CO2 levels worldwide have gotten.

    So, as CO2 has increased, and sea ice levels since 1979 have decreased, the temperatures above that sea have decreased. Now, what does that do to your precious sea-ice-albedo catastrophic feedback?

    Further, it is possible to both show WHY the both of the above are true, and WHY the sea-ice-albedo feedback to dear to the hearts of CAGW believers is dead wrong.

    As CO2 has increased, plant growth of EVERY living plant on earth has increased by 15 to 27% greater mass, greater fruit, greater and thicker leaf covers. Central Canada, central Russia as well is now covered by 20 to 25% MORE plant and tree growth. Tree and greater plant growth absorbs sunlight much, much higher than the highly reflective plain grasses and lower life tundra plants previous living there. Thus, naturally, more plant growth gives lower albedo, more sunlight absorption, and higher daylight temperatures. Further north, towards the areas where strong plant growth becomes non-existent at the sea coast (which varies between 70 and 80 north), the relative amounts of sunlight absorbed has not changed – and temperatures have NOT increased.

    Even NASA-GISS also shows THIS on their prejudiced Cartesian coordinate plots.

    Sea ice albedo feedback?

    The more sea ice is removed, the more ocean surface area is exposed to evaporation effects. At the latitude where sea ice actually is at the summer sea ice minimum (between 80 north and the pole at 90 north at a sea ice minimum of 4 million km2) the amount of energy absorbed by the ocean at NOON (at sun incident angles of 0 to 10 degrees) is LESS than that released by evaporation.

    So, less sea ice? Colder arctic sea temperatures. Regardless of the “apparent” dark ocean albedo at the equator. At the Arctic Ocean beyond 80 north where the sea ice actually exists now, or may evaporate later, it doesn’t exist. Can’t exist due to the physiocs of the ice, the ocean, and the geography of the far north.

    Is there a relationship between rising worldwide average global temperatures and the melt rate of Arctic sea ice? No, because if there were such a relationship, during the 15 years since worldwide average global temperatures have been steady, the Arctic sea ice extents have steadily decreased.

    If there were such a relationship between worldwide average temperature and global sea ice, then in the 150 years BEFORE CO2 began increasing AND while the worldwide temperatures were increasing from the Little Ice Age, the sea ice extents should have been increasingly larger and larger. It did not. They were more or less stable, held by the maximum extent of the Arctic Ocean itself.

    Oh – Land albedo changing due to sea ice extents reducing?

    Can’t happen.

    There are NO regions across the Arctic (mountain tops excepted!) where “ice” covers the ground at mid-September.
    Little ground is covered by ice at late-June, at the point of highest solar angle.
    No ground is covered by ice at Mid-July.
    No ground is covered by ice at Mid-August.

    Right now, ALL regions of the ground previously covered by ice and snow at the point of highest ice coverage in late March have melted by mid-July.

    So, what is the area that will change albedo?

  33. The data says the Arctic will be ice-free (down to Zero) anytime between 2050 and 2100+.

    The issue is how much ice is there at the end of the winter and how melts throughout the summer. Most people do not understand that the amount of sea ice extent/area that melts throughout the summer is relatively consistent from year to year. It grown a small amount but not that much.

    So, end of the winter iue, melt during the year, September minimum going back to 1972.

    If you think these patterns are linear (which looks to be the accurate description), there will not be an ice-free Arctic until after the year 2100. If you think these patterns have some acceleration or exhibit a polynomial function, it could be as early as 2050 (note; there is one additional March in the dataset from this year which was higher than normal which extends the crossover point out 5 years to 2050).

  34. Steven Mosher says:
    July 19, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    “That’s not far away. Concentration and volume ( what really matters ) is being dealt crushing blows. The next year with weather and wind like 2007 will do the trick. ”

    Do you have a data source for this assertion Steve (“crushing blows”)? Thanks.

  35. Climate Forecast:
    To achieve an ice-free planet will take a while. It won’t be this century
    but soon after the solar system leaves the Orion spiral arm which
    should be in about 27 million years time (give or take a few million.)

    There may be a GCR reduced area about half way through to give a
    brief very warm spell but it won’t last.

    As for this century, it will become colder, so more ice rather than less. Coldest time
    will be about 2030 and it should start warming again about 2050 or so. For an idea
    of the weather: read Charles Dickens (any books should do) to see what it will be
    like (pretty similar to 1790-1840 during the Dalton Minimum).

    Any local Super Nova will invalidate this forecast completely.

  36. Tim Folkerts says:
    July 19, 2012 at 1:13 pm

    Smokey says: “Wrong question.”
    Too bad you then proceed to give the wrong answer!

    “The Antarctic is gaining ice. And the Antarctic holds 90% of the planet’s ice. [With a link to an impressive looking graph.]”

    Tim replies:

    1) The graph is for “May” extent. Hmmm … why do you suppose that ONE month was selected, rather than any other month, or the data for all months?”

    Tim, wake up! The chart you’re complaining about “cherry picking” is for N.H. and S.H. ice extent up until May 2012; the latest date available. Maybe by next month they will have the June 2012 totals.

  37. One is reminded of the Aztec’s human sacrifice offerings, where just in case the gods might be crazy so they had better kill off a few more, just in case.
    The “X” generation has already written it off as a joke, most baby boomers are too smart to fall for this drivel so who does that leave supporting the hoax.
    Remembers those lunatics from the seventies and their “flowers in your hair” mentality, spending their waking moments doped to the eyeballs on whatever brain damage drug they can find ?
    There we are, bingo. Their delusions are catching up with them and here they are justifying it all. They did worship those Aztecs as well. It would appear that only someone suffering from some type or level of condition could possibly support the AGW hoax. They regularly raise their hands and verify it.

  38. From MikeP on July 19, 2012 at 11:02 am:

    I was “approved” in about 5 seconds. I wonder what their criteria are?

    The automated process (partial):

    Initial name checking subroutine (partial):

    1000 Name_Check:
    1010 if NAME in consensus_list then goto Approve
    1015 if NAME in fossil_shill_scum_list then goto Timeout_Reject
    1020 gosub Google(NAME)
    1030 goto Hold
    1040 end Name_Check

    1100 Hold:
    1110 if denial_site=1 then goto Review
    1120 goto Approve
    1130 end Hold

    1200 Review:
    1202 "flag mention(s) of NAME at denial site(s)
    1203 " for content checking by human
    1210 gosub Add(NAME,review_list)
    1220 review_list.NAME.wake_user=0
    1230 review_list.NAME.allow=0
    1240 goto Timeout_Reject
    1250 end Review

    1500 Timeout_Reject:
    1510 gosub Send_Wait_Message(NAME)
    1520 end Timeout_Reject

    review_list gets periodically checked. If review_list.NAME.allow=1 then goto Approve and gosub Remove(NAME,review_list). If review_list.NAME.time>=86400, that is the wait timed out, and review_list.NAME.allow=0 then gosub Send_Slapdown(NAME), gosub Add(NAME,watch_list), gosub Remove(NAME,review_list).

    BTW, review_list.NAME.wake_user is just for administrative purposes, to verify those “fact checkers” the temp agency sent over are bothering to do something. Gee, you’d think they’d be grateful to show they can get paying work that’s at least somehow related to their PolySci, Literature, or “Environmentalism” degrees, but nooooo…

  39. Hello Wade

    Try

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

    and

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    for daily updates on sea ice. Its all there for anyone to look at.

    Hello RACookPE1978

    I never mentioned a “sea-ice-albedo catastrophic feedback”.
    I said look at the data, I did not mention feedback.

    You also state
    “during the 15 years since worldwide average global temperatures have been steady”

    Thats not backed by the data but is an often quoted sceptic line.
    Mean global Land-Ocean temperatures have been fairly level since 2003, not 1997. Before 2002/3 there was clear warming, both on the annual plot and the 5 year running mean – see

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

    You also state that “in the 150 years BEFORE CO2 began increasing AND while the worldwide temperatures were increasing from the Little Ice Age, the sea ice extents should have been increasingly larger and larger. It did not”.

    How do you know ? None of us know with accuracy. There was no accurate recording then. We only have local reports and proxy records to go on. What we know now – from the data – is that arctic sea ice is rapidly declining in our era.

    You also say “There are NO regions across the Arctic (mountain tops excepted!) where “ice” covers the ground at mid-September.”

    Err – The Greenland ice cap ?

  40. Hello James Abbott

    RACooke never mentioned which temperature series he used to draw the conclusion that worldwide average global temperatures have been steady for the last 15 years. He was probably thinking of HADCRUT v3 rather than the GISS product.

    Funny you should do exactly what you accused him of doing!

  41. Hmmmn.

    The area of the Greenland ice is relevant only with respect to global albedo, and that area is south of the remaining area of the Arctic Ocean at minimum sea extent. That is, Greenland is between 81 north (where a smidgen sticks out north of 80 north – the area of interest with respect to future ice melting). The rest of Greenland, between 80 north and 60 north (below the Arctic Circle) is now ice covered throughout the year, and will remain ice covered throughout the year. Further, it will remain ice-covered through the next 900 years even under the CAGW’s worse-case imagined terrors. The total area of Greenland is small with respect to global absorption.

    The Greenland ice cap is demonstrably increasing in depth across the center of the ice cap, and has been increasing in depth (across the center) through the 20th century. Gravity studies of Greenland’s ice mass, ice level, actual bedrock levels, and bedrock level changes do NOT prove the assumed mass changes because they measure the height of two mountain tips (which are now, and have been) uncovered approximately 500 miles apart to make assumptions about the changes in level of the bedrock 5000 feet below them and 300 miles away – without evidence of actual measurements of that rock.

    The edges – near the sea – between the mountain caps – are covered by short glaciers that – while moving towards the sea – do not change the total albedo of the rest of the Arctic. That is, what is the area of Canada between 65 north and 75 north compared to the area of an ice-cap over Greenland? A glacier short by 1 or 2 kilometers but discharging into a sea-ice-covered fjord doesn’t change the Arctic albedo.

    And, right now, total temperature change since 1970’s baseline is 1/3 of one degree. In the mid-90’s it was also at 1/3 of one degree. Not much change. While CO2 has been steady for 300 years, global temperatures have increased, been steady and decreased. While CO2 has increased over 40 years, global temperatures have increased, been steady, and decreased.

    Now, just what is this assumed CO2 -temperature relationship?

  42. James Abbott says: July 19, 2012 at 5:05 pm
    You also state “during the 15 years since worldwide average global temperatures have been steady”…

    Hi James. FYI, the last 15 years steady meme comes from fitting a regression line to temperature data and noting it is close to flat. What is always ignored is the biasing effect of outliers (notably the 1998 El-Nino) near the ends of the regression fit. Escpecially ignored are the implications of Foster and Ramstorf 2011 (http://www.skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html) or John Neilsen-Gammon’s approach (http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/04/about-the-lack-of-warming) showing that the underlying temperature trend is consistent at ~0.16C/decade for the last 30 years (and near identical when calculated across the last 15 years).

  43. @Frank K
    The “crushing blow” is based on PIOMAS. Like a melting ice cube, it PIOMAS melting rates are correct, the rate should accelerate rapidly and the death spiral should deal the final crushing blow and we should see an ice free Arctic September within the next 2 years, 3 max.

    I used to like Steve Mosher’s comments in years past, but once he started using Tamino and RC as his go-to reference, he has become more shrill and lost all credibility with me…..not that he cares one wit or will bother to honor your request. :)

    P.S. Wasn’t Cryosat supposed to settle the matter on ice thickness? Seems to me its first full data release last year didn’t bode well for correlating to PIOMAS.

    And whatever happened to Greenland being the canary in the coalmine for AGW?

  44. DR says:
    July 19, 2012 at 8:08 pm

    Thanks DR. Here is PIOMAS

    PIOMAS is a computer code for simulating arctic sea ice changes. A computer code. Numerical modeling. Not data (though it does do hindcasting).

    I also did not see the words “crushing blow” in any of the online links, but then I just skimmed them. Let me know if anyone finds the words “crushing blow”. Thanks.

  45. RACookPE1978 says:
    July 19, 2012 at 3:49 pm

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

    By the lack of response to what you wrote, it may appear that you have caused some confusion.

    To refute what you say would require thinking and a reasoned argument. That seems to be lacking here. The talking points focus on the death spiral of the arctic sea ice, a very narrow viewpoint and not encompassing a greater overall look at things. I am referring to the pitch in general and not specific to this thread with regards to the talking points.

    If you don’t keep it simple and stay within the narrow scope covered by the established dialog of the “looming sea ice catastrophic disaster” you will get little response to your comments. Actual thinking can cause uncertainty and confusion while simply accepting and parroting that which one is told is much more comforting to some. Exercising grey matter is optional.

  46. Frank K,
    I guess the point I was stressing is what about Cryosat? Why no updates we were told that would track the monthly death spiral?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

  47. PIOMAS, like it or not, is a consistent method for estimating volume loss. Taken at face value, it would indicate 3 years or so.. hence at 2020 take the under bet.

    concentration? simple. use your heads. slightly smaller area, with less volume. durrr. one need not ( and i dont) refer to tammy or RC.

    when in doubt check concentration maps. and check the MYI ice exiting via fram and nares.

    2020. take the under bet.

    Albedo in greenland is also getting smashed

  48. I put WUWT as my affiliation and as for my position it didn’t have sitting down so had to go with another, I’m not sure if they would have accepted university of life so just went with some college/uni. Will let you know if I get in.
    James Bull

  49. From Steven Mosher on July 19, 2012 at 11:45 pm:

    PIOMAS, like it or not, is a consistent method for estimating volume loss.

    It was consistently unrealistic.

    As was clearly shown on the original (now defunct) PIOMAS site, it was thoroughly researched, confirmed, vetted, etc. It was widely cited by the Arctic doomsayers as undeniable proof.

    Then skeptics looked closer at it.

    April 28, 2010:
    Disconnected Computer Modeling (Steven Goddard)
    -PIOMAS animation showing sea ice north of Barrow, Alaska gone by August 18.

    May 28, 2010:
    Does PIOMASS verify? (Steven Goddard)

    June 1, 2010:
    PIOMAS (non) Verification II (Steven Goddard)

    August 8. 2010:
    Sea Ice News #17 (Goddard)
    -Ice in Beaufort Sea is still there, PIOMAS mis-predicted the ice edge. Thick ice where PIOMAS predicted thin, PIOMAS’ volume calculations are much too low.

    Then PIOMAS Version 2, the “Grand Correction”, came forth.

    June 28, 2011:
    PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Model Corrected – Still Appears Suspect (Just The Facts)

    Goddard was known for supporting the US Navy’s PIPS2 thickness info over PIOMAS, which I agreed with. Dr. Meier of NSIDC chimed in.

    July 13, 2010:
    NSIDC’s Dr. Walt Meier on PIPS -vs- PIOMAS
    -“For operational forecasts, I might use PIPS. And PIPS probably does capture some aspects of the longer-term changes. But for the reasons stated above, I would trust the PIOMAS model results more for seasonal and interannual changes in the ice cover. I very much doubt that anyone familiar with the model details would unequivocally trust PIPS over PIOMAS.”

    Then the first CRYOSAT data came in.

    June 21, 2011:
    Cryosat Agrees With PIPS

    Dr. Meier wasn’t completely fooled by PIOMAS, he had remarked about PIOMAS’ “issues” before.

    October 21, 2010:
    Summer 2010 in the Arctic and Other Sea Ice Topics
    PIPS vs. PIOMAS revisited section
    -“So while PIOMAS may be biased too low on ice volume, it captures the overall thinning trend and seems to better represent the actual state of the ice cover than PIPS.”

    But still, Dr. Meier, Arctic sea ice expert, trusted PIOMAS. Which was subsequently corrected.

    So now there is PIOMAS v2.0, which is thoroughly researched, confirmed, vetted, etc, and can be freely trusted.

    Just like the previous version.

    What’s consistent about PIOMAS is its consistently being promoted as “proof” of impending Arctic DOOM, as it consistently shows a downward volume trend. Consistently reliable and accurate, not so much.

  50. William Astley says:

    The warming in the Arctic is due to changes in planetary cloud cover (less cloud cover).

    Do we really know the Arctic is warming? I was under the impression that very few, if any, weather reporting stations existed up there and that the “warming” was mostly due to interpolation of data from stations 1500 km away. How many weather stations are up there, actually?

  51. Tim Folkerts says:
    July 19, 2012 at 1:13 pm

    2) You are comparing apples and oranges — sea ice vs land ice. The graph is sea ice, which does show a modest gain. However, when you say “the Antarctic holds 90% of the planet’s ice”, you are clearly referencing land ice. And the land ice has been declining steadily since 2003 (when accurate satellite measurements started). http://ess.uci.edu/researchgrp/velicogna/files/slide2.jpg This decline in land ice outweighs any small gain in sea ice.

    Here are a few old WUWT comments on the supposed loss of Antarctic land ice. (I think there were better ones that I missed.)

    Steve Goddard (06:11:15) :

    Glaciers expand and flow towards the ocean (like in Antarctica and Greenland) when their mass is increasing in the interior. Diminishing glaciers are characterized by retreat, not expansion.

    As far as the gravity measurements go, they are very questionable, because there is no bedrock reference point under the ice for the vast majority of the continent. The tiny measured gravity changes could be due to isostasy or tectonic movement rather than ice loss.

    Ryan Stephenson (07:08:36) :

    You may like to note that the highest mountains in the Alps have mean summer temperatures at -2Celsius but maximum summer temperatures of +10Celsius. Even this is not enough to ensure that the glaciers at the top of such mountains melt away to nothing during the summer. Therefore, what chance is there of such glaciers melting in Antartica where the temperatures are never greater than -30Celsius in the Summer? Very low surely. Of course, those glaciers close to the coast where the ice has a chance of slipping into the sea will melt on reaching the warmer ocean, but the vast majority of the ice is on the Antartic plateau with no obvious route to the ocean. Furthermore, the melting of glaciers in the Alps tends to be at its highest not due to warm days per se but due to warm Summer rain falling onto the glaciers – a process physically impossible in the Antartic.

    I submit that it is not physically possible for significant levels of land ice in Antartica to melt and thus contribute to sea level rise as a result of AGW, even if such exists. The mean temperatures are far too low for AGW to raise the temperature up to melting point. Some ice may flow to the sea in glaciers, but it is a tiny proportion of the total, and readily replaced by precipitation inland that is always in the form of snow. We should perhaps be glad that the glaciers do indeed flow to the ocean and melt, because otherwise Antartica would act as a kind of precipitation trap, with snow falling on Antartica and staying there.
    10 03 2010

    Science 22 July 2011:
    Vol. 333 no. 6041 p. 401
    DOI: 10.1126/science.333.6041.401

    Antarctic Ice’s Future Still Mired in Its Murky Past
    Richard A. Kerr
    Summary

    “A new reanalysis by two NASA scientists of the three standard ice-monitoring techniques slashes the estimated loss from East Antarctica, challenging the large, headline-grabbing losses reported lately for the continent as a whole. Although not the final word, the new study shows that researchers still have a lot to learn about the vast East Antarctic Ice Sheet.”

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6041/401.summary?ref=topst

    PajamaMan says:
    July 26, 2011 at 10:16 am

    Greenland ice sheet is growing. https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/MattCronin-Mar21-07-d/Johannessenetal05-GreenlandIceFinal.pdf

    Antarctic sea ice is growing: http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-0-1225700043191

    “Camburn says:

    January 7, 2012 at 4:52 pm 8. We all know that water flow from Greenland has increased. Altho, in the mean mass, the volume while up, is not a large volume. Antartic Ice Volume, in your opinion, has gone down. Yet, the oceans are not reflecting the increase in water from said volume.”

  52. Hello Billy Liar

    You say

    “RACooke never mentioned which temperature series he used to draw the conclusion that worldwide average global temperatures have been steady for the last 15 years. He was probably thinking of HADCRUT v3 rather than the GISS product.”

    Hello Ammonite

    You say

    “Hi James. FYI, the last 15 years steady meme comes from fitting a regression line to temperature data and noting it is close to flat. What is always ignored is the biasing effect of outliers (notably the 1998 El-Nino) near the ends of the regression fit. Escpecially ignored are the implications of Foster and Ramstorf 2011 (http://www.skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html) or John Neilsen-Gammon’s approach (http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/04/about-the-lack-of-warming) showing that the underlying temperature trend is consistent at ~0.16C/decade for the last 30 years (and near identical when calculated across the last 15 years).”

    One of the problems with the analysis of temperature is that there are several data sets and of course it is possible to do various mathematical interpretations on each, so just about everyone can find an argument to suit.

    NASA GISS is one of the recognised data sets and is perfectly valid.

    But in any case HADCRUT v3 does not show a 15 year standstill. It shows warming until the early 2000s then a slight decline.

    I certainly did not “ignore” 1998 as implied. It was obviously an extreme year. Which is why a 5 year running mean is useful as it smooths outliers and gives a better medium term trend line.

    It is also worth noting that in terms of individual years, every year since 2001 has been warmer than every year in the 1990s except 1998.

    I think the main point arising from this exchange is that there is no smooth change in the record so we should not be looking to find such a fit. As would be expected from a dynamic system with complex forcing mechanisms, there is variation between years and cycles on medium timescales, etc. Thats obvious looking at the trend lines – for example the dips in temperature in the early 1980s and early 1990s (influenced by Pinatubo). It did not mean that long term warming had stopped then, just as it does not mean it has stopped now because the trend line has been broadly flat since 2003.

    One forcing mechanism with a good correlation to annual variation is the El Nino/La Nina oscillation. When we move to full El Nino, we should see new record warmth. 2011 was the warmest recorded La Nina year.

    We are currently in a neutral phase but appear to be moving to El NIno and that shows up in the monthly trend. June 2012 was the warmest on record for both the Northern Hemisphere land and ocean average surface temperature and the globally-averaged land surface temperature.

    But time will tell.

  53. OK, I’ll ask the question. Why is less Arctic ice (or Antarctic) a “bad” thing? Silly me, but I’d suppose the polar biospheres are more productive when the ice melts.

  54. Hello Beng

    Its arguably not a case of bad or good. There has been more ice and less ice before, especially in the last 3 million years, changes which have been associated with the Croll-Milankovitch Cycles caused by periodic oscillations of the Earth’s orbital eccentricity, tilt and the precession of the pole.

    The point now is that humans are the likely cause of major change in the arctic through global warming caused (largely) by fossil fuel emissions. So the relative stability that has likely existed in sea ice for the period of modern settled communities (last few thousands years), may be ending.

    So if we get an ice free arctic in the summer (it won’t be in the winter unless temperatures reach levels that the worst-case models predict) we will get accelerated warming in high northern latitudes due to greater absorption of solar radiation which in turn will accelerate melting of land based ice, which in turn will accelerate sea level rise. For example, if half the ice in the Greenland ice cap melted (which would take many centuries) then sea level would rise about 3m – very bad news for the large coastal and estuary cities (ie London, New York) and for huge areas of low lying productive farmland. It might be possible to defend some cities, but not entire coastlines.

    An early impact could include major disruption to arctic flora and fauna. As you say, the polar biosphere would be more productive but that would be due to invasion of species from the south at the expense of what is there now.

    A largely ice free arctic in the summer would result in inevitable commercial exploitation – including yet more fossil fuel extraction – the oil companies are already getting into position for this.

    On the “plus” side, tourists could go to the north pole on a cruise ship.

  55. Check out the “North Pole Camera” on the WUWT “Sea Ice Page.” Both Camera #1 and Camera #2 show lovely summer weather, and patches of melt-water atop the ice.

    One problem has been that this melt-water can appear to be open-water, in the radar-eyes of a satellite. Apparently liquid does a great job of absorbing radar, and the radar got no echo even if the water was one inch deep rather than one mile deep. Has this problem been addressed?

    Also camera #1 shows a neat pressure ridge on the horizon to the upper left. That little mountain wasn’t there a month ago. Remember that nine tenths of it is under water. Quite a “Volume” of ice is in a small area, there.

  56. RACooke says:
    “Up at 80 north altitude, through the entire summer melting season the DMI-measured temperatures since 1958 have not not increased “faster than anywhere else”, they have not been steady since 1958, they have been decreasing since 1958. “

    But the webpage for these numbers specifically states “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. ” So you are accepting one model, while rejecting another model. Why specifically do you trust DMI over NASA? What is different or better about one algorithm over the other?

    Could you provide a link to support your claim about “decreasing since 1958″? Just glancing at the summer data, it seems to be holding remarkable close to the long-term average the whole time. I would be surprised to see a trend that is either statistically or climatologically significant in the summer temperatures. Of course, you would not expect to see much change in the summer temperatures, so the whole argument is a bit of a red herring. No matter how much extra energy is pushed in (eg “back-radiation” from the CO2), the air cannot warm much above 0C, the temperature of the melting ice). The ice could be melting much faster or much slower with little change in the temperature.

    Furthermore, there is more to the story than just the maximum temperatures in a relatively small area. The minimums during the “entire fall/winter/spring re-freezing season” have indeed been colder even with the DMI models.

    I have done a lot of statistics on correlations between northern ice extent and various parameters. I looked at areas north of 70N, rather than 80N (ie DMI models), mostly because this seemed to encompass the Arctic (and particularly the Atctic waters) pretty well. For this area using NCEP Reanalysis from NOAA, the temperature for every month — both air and sea surface temperatures — has be trending UPWARD (although a couple summer months for SST was not statistically significant).

  57. From JamesS on July 20, 2012 at 4:09 am:

    Do we really know the Arctic is warming?

    We know it is in the satellite era. This is shown in the readily-obtainable UAH data, such as for the lower troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

    (Open as text file, replace all double spaces with single spaces until no more doubles, then easily Paste Special the result into a spreadsheet using space as delimiter.)

    Temperature numbers are anomalies from the 1981-2010 average.

    Decadal linear trends are already calculated at the bottom (shift numbers right one column for spreadsheet). NoPol overall is 0.47°C/decade, Land is 0.44, Ocean is 0.53.

    So we can see the warming from December 1978 (start of record) to the current end of record, June 2012.

    Note the Arctic is warming at roughly twice the rate of the Northern Hemisphere. Which brings up something really important. With some searching on WUWT you can find posts about numerous peer-reviewed published papers showing up to around half of the Arctic warming is actually from carbon soot, aka black carbon. Plus it could be increasing global warming in general.

    Black carbon linked to half of Arctic warming

    http://notrickszone.com/2011/03/05/new-earth-moving-un-study-says-half-of-arctic-warming-caused-by-soot-and-not-co2/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/29/oh-soot/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/16/carbon-soot-may-be-driving-the-expansion-of-the-tropics-not-co2/

    Etc.

    The Arctic doomsayers will point to the increased warming rates as proof of “Arctic amplification” and such and claim it proves we must cut CO₂ emissions. That’s a lot easier than saying countries like China, India, and others need to burn their fuels cleaner and stop dirtying up the Arctic snow and ice.

    I was under the impression that very few, if any, weather reporting stations existed up there and that the “warming” was mostly due to interpolation of data from stations 1500 km away.

    GISS will “smear” temperature data from up to 1200km away. What relatively few stations there are, tend to be around notable concentrations of humans, who prefer heated buildings and power generation that consequently releases heat, which influences temperature measurements.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/22/arctic-isolated-versus-urban-stations-show-differing-trends/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/dmi-polar-data-shows-cooler-arctic-temperature-since-1958/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/26/giss-swiss-cheese/

    -“Most Arctic stations used in GISTEMP are 1000 km (621 miles) or more away from the North Pole. That is about the distance from Chicago to Atlanta. Again would you use climate records from Atlanta to gauge what is happening in Chicago?”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/28/giss-arctic-vs-dmi-arctic-differences-in-method/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/31/giss-deletes-arctic-and-southern-ocean-sea-surface-temperature-data/

    And recently:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/11/another-giss-miss-warming-in-the-arctic-the-adjustments-are-key/

    So the surface-based temperature datasets like GISS, which has “adjusted” the temperature records like clay into the shape of extreme Arctic warming, are best ignored, even though that means discarding what are theoretically the older temperatures. However the modern satellite records like UAH are good enough to be trusted.

  58. James Abbott says:
    July 20, 2012 at 6:42 am

    NASA-GISS is not a credible source of climate temperatures: Its head (Hansen) has been personally paid several hundreds of thousands in dollars (in addition to his millions of government salaries) specifically and directly BECAUSE of his CAGW views and politics. Hansen has manipulated even his own earliest research – changing his published temperatures several times to lower measured temperature values in the twenties and thrities to make his (very profitable!) CAGW politics even more politically corrupt (er, correct) and to increase his agencies budgets.

    Measured global temperatures are now +1/3 of one degree above the baseline value set in the early 1970’s. That is the same as they were in the mid-1990’s – before the 1998 El Nino.

  59. From James Abbott on July 20, 2012 at 6:42 am:

    It is also worth noting that in terms of individual years, every year since 2001 has been warmer than every year in the 1990s except 1998.

    NCDC GHCN disagrees.

    Relevant datasets here. Select “The Annual Global (land and ocean combined) Anomalies (degrees C)”.


    1990 0.3903
    1991 0.3630
    1992 0.2203
    1993 0.2505
    1994 0.3131
    1995 0.4352
    1996 0.3066
    1997 0.5038 - warmest
    1998 0.6184
    1999 0.4359
    2000 0.4120
    2001 0.5344
    2002 0.5939
    2003 0.6038
    2004 0.5620
    2005 0.6365
    2006 0.5812
    2007 0.5734
    2008 0.4954 - cooler
    2009 0.5780
    2010 0.6358
    2011 0.5100

    For selected range, 1990-1997 and 1999, warmest year was 1997. 2008 was cooler.

    If you look only at Land then you are correct. Warmest year of the selected range was 1995, which was actually quite a spike with 1996 being much lower.

    But if you look at Ocean then warmest year of selected range was 1997. 2007, 2008, and 2011 were all cooler than 1997.

  60. ***
    James Abbott says:
    July 20, 2012 at 7:44 am
    ***

    Hehe. You must take me as a neophyte. Thanks for taking the bait.

    The point now is that humans are the likely cause of major change in the arctic through global warming caused (largely) by fossil fuel emissions. So the relative stability that has likely existed in sea ice for the period of modern settled communities (last few thousands years), may be ending.

    Stability? The Arctic sea-ice is the epitome of transience. In the order of a mere 6 months it changes on the scale of a continent. The Antarctic even more — all the sea ice vanishes at it’s minimum. And how are modern communities going to be affected by not having their shores encased in ice? Sea-ice melting doesn’t affect sea-level, remember?

    So if we get an ice free arctic in the summer (it won’t be in the winter unless temperatures reach levels that the worst-case models predict) we will get accelerated warming in high northern latitudes due to greater absorption of solar radiation which in turn will accelerate melting of land based ice, which in turn will accelerate sea level rise. For example, if half the ice in the Greenland ice cap melted (which would take many centuries) then sea level would rise about 3m – very bad news for the large coastal and estuary cities (ie London, New York) and for huge areas of low lying productive farmland. It might be possible to defend some cities, but not entire coastlines.

    Greenland’s already pretty much ice-free in summer around its periphery except the north shore. You really think briefly-opened Arctic waters that are barely above freezing (and not even necessarily upwind) can significantly melt Greenland? Alotta free-wheeling extrapolation/alarmism there.

    An early impact could include major disruption to arctic flora and fauna. As you say, the polar biosphere would be more productive but that would be due to invasion of species from the south at the expense of what is there now.

    More unfounded alarmism? As I said, there is already a massive 6-month change in the sea-ice coverage. Life there is already adapted to those conditions (or it’d be extinct). Whales moving into newly opened, now plankton-rich waters hurts exactly what? Polar bears survived the recent Holocene Optimum & the previous, warmer interglacial. Nuff said.

    A largely ice free arctic in the summer would result in inevitable commercial exploitation – including yet more fossil fuel extraction – the oil companies are already getting into position for this.

    Environmentalist drivel (using the word-speak “exploitation”). I’d say it’s a good thing.

    PS Now are there any serious responses?

  61. Hello beng

    The stability I referred to is in the range of the annual oscillation. I think you will find that in the major glaciations of the last 3 million years ice extended well south of where it has ever reached in the modern era – and deep glacial ice, not just sea ice.

    Yes a more ice free arctic in summer is likely to increase melt in Greenland. Its basic physics. The sea ice cools the air above it to near zero. Much less sea ice means warmer surface temperatures in the arctic basin which will tend to erode the polar glaciers and ice sheets faster. And the albedo feedback is on top of that.

    The deepest, most persistant sea ice is north of Greenland, which on current trends will be the last to go in the summer melts of years to come. It locks to the land around the north of Greenland and Ellesmere Island. Remove it and the coastal areas where the glaciers calve into the sea will be exposed to much higher summer temperatures. The glaciers in west Greenland which are being exposed to higher temperatures and less coastal sea ice are already speeding up and producing more meltwater.

    The 2 main drivers of sea level rise are thermal expansion and grounded ice melt. The sceptic community claims that neither the world is warming nor is the ice melt increasing. So why is sea level rising ? Lets have an explanation please.

    Finally, do you really believe that oil companies moving into the arctic is a good thing – in your own words it is “environmentalist drivel” to be concerned about it ?

    Even if you dismiss the link betwen rising carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature, surely the risk of major oil spills in cold, remote waters should concern you ?

  62. Caleb:

    “Scientists at NSIDC report extent because they are cautious about summertime values of ice concentration and area taken from satellite sensors. To the sensor, surface melt appears to be open water rather than water on top of sea ice. So, while reliable for measuring area most of the year, the microwave sensor is prone to underestimating the actual ice concentration and area when the surface is melting. To account for that potential inaccuracy, NSIDC scientists rely primarily on extent when analyzing melt-season conditions and reporting them to the public. That said, analyzing ice area is still quite valuable. Given the right circumstances, background knowledge, and scientific information on current conditions, it can provide an excellent sense of how much ice there really is “on the ground.”

    yes, that pressure ridge is interesting. I suppose when relatively thin ice is compacted you will see: a decrease in area/extent in one place… and a increased thickness in another place.

    Change in volume? I dunno, go ahead and make an argument

  63. JamesS says:
    July 20, 2012 at 4:09 am (Edit)
    William Astley says:

    The warming in the Arctic is due to changes in planetary cloud cover (less cloud cover).

    Do we really know the Arctic is warming? I was under the impression that very few, if any, weather reporting stations existed up there and that the “warming” was mostly due to interpolation of data from stations 1500 km away. How many weather stations are up there, actually?

    #### depends if you want to include Bouys.

    But in general. you have land stations These are warming, they measure air temp.
    over melting ice the air temperature is stable.

    You have SST.

    So it depends on the season. what you really care about in the temperatures during melt season, and primarily SST, which is measured by satellites. The influx of heat through the arctic is best analyzed I would think by looking at SSTs. not air temp. remember the air temp over melting ice.

  64. kadaka (KD Knoebel).

    PIPS 2.0. now defunct.

    It would be interesting to compare how PIPS 2.0 ( a model) would have compared in 2012 to other models (PIOMAS) and then on to models of observations. ( Cryostat)

    I would not make too much out of 1 years worth of observations. with PIPS 2.0 gone, I guess you’ll never know.

    However, if you believed PIPs ( a model ) and used a model ( linear regression of the last 10 years of data) to predict the time when september volume reaches zero. it would be 2026.

    So, like I said. 2020 is the over under line for Ice free ( area in sept < 1million sq km)

    2020: smart money says take the under bet.

  65. There are various factors affecting Arctic sea ice. But CO2 is not one of them. And “carbon” is what all the arm-waving is about, no?

    The natural decline in Arctic ice has happened before. Repeatedly. The alarmist crowd is grasping at the ‘Arctic ice decline’ straw like a desperate drowning man, because that’s all they have left to alarm the populace with. Every other scare has been debunked: the tropospheric ‘hot spot’, two-headed frogs, increasing hurricanes, floods, droughts, etc., etc. Everything observed today has happened in the past, when CO2 was much lower — and those historical extremes reached a far greater extent than the very *mild* temperature changes over the past 150 years; 0.8ºC is nothing over a century and a half.

    Unless and until someone can provide testable evidence showing that Arctic ice cover is a function of human CO2 emissions, Occam rules: the simplest explanation is most likely the correct explanation. Wind, changing ocean currents, and similar natural causes are the reason for the recent decline. CO2 has nothing to do with Arctic ice cover.

    Prove me wrong.

  66. Smokey.

    You havent made a testable statement. when you formulate a testable hypothesis, then you have the possibility that someone can disconfirm your hypothesis.

    Other points.
    1. Occam’s razor is not science. It is a pragmatic rule.
    2. Arguing that wind and currents is “the cause” is not a hypothesis. for that you need actual numbers.

    Arguing that c02 has nothing to do with ice cover is not a meaningful, scientifically meaningful or measurable, claim. You really need to study the structure of scientific sentences or claims.

    But lets start with something simple. If warmer water flowed into the arctic in 1936, for example, would you expect the ice to melt more or less than if colder water was flowing in?

    You do know that the currents and wind seen in 2007 have occurred before without any great ice melt. by your logic they cant cause melting. oh, by the way. wind doesnt cause ice to melt.
    Wind can compact ice. Wind can move ice to places where warmer water cause the ice to melt, but wind, in an of itself, doesnt melt ice. You realize that really strong wind blows in the antarctic.
    And ‘current’ doesnt melt ice either. it moves ice, but doesnt melt it. ice would be melted by….
    adding heat.

  67. Steven Mosher,

    You want a testable hypothesis? I got yer testable hypothesis right here:

    At current and projected concentrations CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere

    Have at it.☺

    If you’re making the claim that less Arctic ice is due to human CO2 emissions, then the onus is on you to provide testable evidence showing that Arctic ice cover is a function of human CO2 emissions.

    But it’s hard to understand from your comments, so if you are saying instead that Arctic ice decline is due to factors other than CO2, then we’re on the same page.

  68. James Abbott says: July 20, 2012 at 6:42 am
    “I certainly did not “ignore” 1998 as implied.”

    I know you didn’t. It is however common for many posters on WUWT ignore its effect on regression calculations.

    “When we move to full El Nino, we should see new record warmth.”

    Agreed.

  69. From Steven Mosher on July 20, 2012 at 12:42 pm:

    However, if you believed PIPs ( a model ) and used a model ( linear regression of the last 10 years of data) to predict the time when september volume reaches zero. it would be 2026.

    You got a link to where you got that PIPS data? Because all us non-Navy people can get is the maps. Goddard used to catch flak for pixel counting, but how else do you get the info?

    In any case, 2026 doesn’t sound as bad as it could be.

    Since self-flagellation until exsanguination is frowned upon in these prudish times, instead I took the PIOMAS v2.0 daily results and shoved them into a spreadsheet for analysis. Isolating the September data, placing equations just right to keep the graphs lined up… Sure got my ration of Friday fun.

    All September daily numbers for all completed Septembers, linear regression, the Arctic will run out of ice before 2034 is halfway done, translate as 2033 will still have some ice in September but 2034 will run out.

    But as we’re worried about when it crosses the zero line and September does have some variation, I worked with the minimums on the days they occurred. (The same minimum showed up twice on two successive days so I went with the first day.)

    Effectively the same results, zero was crossed at the end of January 2034.

    But then I worked with the last 10 years (2001-2011) as you mentioned.

    PIOMAS v2.0 says there’ll be no remaining September Arctic sea ice in 2017.

    So if the New Improved PIOMAS is correct and the linear fit is valid (R^2 by the minimums is 0.946, damn good for climate science), the ice will be gone nine years earlier than your 2026 figure.

    So, like I said. 2020 is the over under line for Ice free ( area in sept < 1million sq km)

    Well since PIOMAS says there’ll be zero remaining km^3 of ice in 2017, seems it’d be a safe bet there would be be zero km^2, which is less than 10^6 km^2, of ice area three years earlier than that.

  70. Smokey. Thats not testable. you have to define “harmless” use a measure and use a NUMBER.

    Like so:
    Eating an excess 4000 calories per day will result putting on 20 lbs of excess weight.

    see thats testable.

    but your claim is not testable, because it doesnt say anything quantifiable. “harmless” and “beneficial” need to cast as measurable entities.

  71. Now smokey WRT ice. You are the one who claimed that ice and currents melted ice.
    but during the winter there is wind and there are currents.. whats up with that? no ice melting.

    Its pretty simple. ice is melted by heat. let’s see if you can agree to that.

    Does c02 melt ice? nope. Does more c02 lead to a warmer planet? yes, even you agreed to that.

  72. But, we have measurements from DMI (the DMI model as you prefer to describe it) that clearly shows that – during the melting time of the year, the only time of the year when temperatures are warmer than 0.0,C and air can melt ice) – that air temp’s have NOT exceeded 3 degrees C at any time since 1958.

    Further, these same measurement prove that on a day-to-day basis – not missing any days, not skipping nor changing location nor changing measurement methods or positions – on a day-to-day basis air temperatures since 1958 are going down. The std deviation of every such air temperature is very, very little. (The winter air temperatures have wide scatter, but are irrelevant, it is only during summer that the air (and the CO2 that assumed to be warming the air) can melt ice.

    But, and you are missing this significant “but” – the air temperature over central Canada (which NASA-GISS claims is going up so much with its huge rad-marked areas – isn’t over top of the ice at 50 north latitude, at 60 north latitude, and 70 north latitude. The ice is further north between 80 north latitude and 90 north. It doesn’t matter what central Canada is assumed to be doing by NASA-GISS smeared models of assumed 1200 km temperature re-calculations and homogenizations.

    The actual temperature over the water (where the ice is actually located) has not changed up or down during the months of the year when it is (1) exposed to the air and (2) melting.

    There is no catastrophic Arctic ice-albedo positive feedback possible; the more ice melts north of 80 north during the minimum ice coverage season (from any cause) the more heat is released from the Arctic Ocean to the air and atmosphere through evaporation and radiation.

    All “Arctic”ground ice (Greenland excepted, where mountains and ice cap change things for a limited area – limited that is when compared to Arctic en total) has already melted well before the point of minimum sea ice extents in late September at the solstice. South of a rough circle around the pole at 80 north – the range of the current 4 million km@ sea ice minimum – there is NO more ground snow and ice to melt. South of 80 north latitude, there is no more sea ice available to melt. [Actually, the sea ice minimum is slightly offset to the SW from the pole, but the “circular approximation” at 80 north latitude is within 5%.)

    So, what happens if ALL of the sea ice were to vanish one September morning?

    On clear days, the inbound energy from the sun would be reflected from the ocean surface – since it hits at an angle between 10 and 0 degrees (at most, even at noon) and is not absorbed on clear days, and the newly exposed water would evaporate into the air….. cooling the ocean. And each degree further north, the sun at maximum is lower down and reflects even more energy from the ocean surface. At minimum ice extents, the sun is behind the earth 12 hours a days, and the ocean faces twilight conditions from 6:00 am to 8:00 am, from 400 pm to 6:00 pm local solar time, so even the lower sun angles expose the ocean surface to inbound radiation for fewer hours.

    At minimum ice extents, the myth of a 24 hour-a-day sun is wrong. Dead wrong.

    The myth of a positive solar-sea-ice feedback is wrong. Dead wrong in every detail and real physical fact of geography, heat transfer, sunlight optics, atmospheric absorption of energy, and temperature.

    On cloudy days, the inbound radiation, already attenuated by over 11 air masses of air, dirt, clouds, and soot and high-level ice found across the high Arctic, reflects more energy from the the top of the clouds than on clear days, and the re-reflected energy (less than 30% of the original rays) comes closer to matching the evaporation losses, but the higher winds associated with clear days increases evaporation losses. No improvement in net heat energy into the water. No heating of the air above the ocean.

    There is no more land area south of the Arctic Ocean (Russia side or Canada side) to absorb any more energy from the sun than that area that is already exposed. And, what land is exposed, is growing 17 to 25% MORE vegetation and leaf matter than before 1960. Therefore, its albedo is lower, more energy is absorbed, and the LAND and air above that land heats up. More things grow, eat, die, and are food.

    Since there is no more land that is exposed to the sun than the present days, there is NO Arctic amplification possible from future CO2, future solar exposure, or potential future heat increases in the Arctic south of the ocean-land boundary, nor north of the ocean beaches for that matter. All of the ice and snow that can be exposed to the sun has already melted by mid-September.

    —–

    In conclusion, we have shown that the air temperature above the actual areas where the sea ice is now located during the melting season have NOT increased since 1958, and that those air temperatures above and around the sea ice at 80 north are decreasing with increased CO2 concentration under sunlight exposure. At other parts of the year (times not associated with ice melt but ice growth), air temperatures at 80 north cannot be a function of re-radiated sunlight, since there is no sunlight at those times of the year.

    We agree that the low air temperatures above and around the current sea ice minimum extents above 80 north latitude “should” increase the greenhouse effect of the CO2 also in the Arctic air, and therefore the Arctic air above the current sea ice extents should be increasingly warmer as more CO2 is added worldwide each year. However, that ASSUMPTION is not what is being reported by the DMI daily results over the past 50 years since 1958 – during the period of the year when the Arctic sea ice is exposed to both air and CO2 and water vapor and sunlight. We have no reason for this difference between CAGW theory and reported results of actual air temperatures where the sea ice is at minimum extents, but …. the CAGW theory just might be wrong.

    We have NOT shown a reason for ice extents to be decreasing since the mid-1970’s, and will not speculate on any assumed reasons for that decline, but have shown that that a decrease in air temperature – where the sea ice actually is now (not in NASA-GISS-‘s “mid-Canada “arctic” hotspots – is consistent with lowering sea ice extents.

    Further, since air temperatures are NOT increasing where the sea ice is melting during late summer – at the border between 80 north and 75 north latitudes, increased greenhouse gasses in the Arctic, at the equator, or worldwide cannot be the reason for the decline in sea ice.

    We have shown increased vegetation growth due to increased OC2 is a valid reason for central Canada air temperatures to be increasing since 1960 – but those higher temperatures (if valid and not tampered with or manipulated for political and fiscal reasons) are increasing well away from the Arctic ice and therefore irrelevant with respect to Arctic ice increases or decreases at the time of sea ice minimum.

  73. RACooke, I agree with some of what you say — it is certainly not a simple problem to figure out what is happening with the ice and what factors are involved in what ways. But I have to disagree with your statement:

    But, and you are missing this significant “but” – the air temperature over central Canada (which NASA-GISS claims is going up so much with its huge rad-marked areas – isn’t over top of the ice at 50 north latitude, at 60 north latitude, and 70 north latitude. The ice is further north between 80 north latitude and 90 north.

    There is a huge chuck of sea ice in central Canada — called Hudson Bay — that extends down to ~ 55N. It freezes every winter. The Bering Sea also freezes down to about 55 N. The Sea of Okhotsk freezes down past 50 N (or it used to 30 years ago). The east coast of Canada also freezes down to ~ 50 N. Both coasts of Greenland freeze to ~ 65N. The Arctic Ocean itself extents to about 70N, not 80N.

    Thus, there are HUGE areas of ice that melt “in the south” where there is more sunlight. All spring and summer, these areas are melting. When they do, the albedo DOES change and the water DOES absorb more sunlight and the water DOES warm. This helps melt the ice further north, and slows re-freezing the next fall.

    In many ways, the ice extent in June & July would matter most, since that is when the sunlight is strongest. (It surprises most people to learn that for a month or so in mid-summer, the the North Pole gets the most solar energy per day of any place on earth. In fact, any spot north of the Arctic Circle gets more energy than any spot in the tropics (at the top of the atmosphere anyway, where we ignore cloud cover, humidity, dust, etc) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:InsolationTopOfAtmosphere.png).

    If you want to talk STRICTLY about 80N – 90N, then you are right that this specific area is pretty much always ice covered and pretty much doesn’t change albedo. (And furthermore, at such a glancing angle, the albedo of open ocean is pretty high anyway, so water vs ice does not make as big of a difference as many people might think.) The presence of summer ice means the air cannot ever warm above ~ 3 C. But 80N-90N is definitely not the whole story.

  74. cookie.

    air temps above melting ice will never increase… till all the ice is melted.

    more concentration pictures boys… looking grim. the right change in weather… whoosh.

    Area will drop below 3m sq km this year. MYI flow through fram and nares will continue to diminish volume. recovery…? not likely

  75. Tim:

    Each area you mention is ice-covered in winter, melts through the spring and late spring into early summer. (The period between max ice extent at about mid-March in the northern hemisphere into the period of fastest melt in early July.)

    But these areas are already melting every year.

    So, if CO2 rises, there is no difference in net day-to-day earth albedo through the year “if” the Baltic, Hudson Bay or regions off of Greenland east coast melt. They ALREADY have melted this spring, next spring, and will likely continue to melt every year. The increased energy absorbed by the darker ocean water exposed to the sun’s rays is already inside the earth’s heat circulation patterns and overall heat balance.

    The ONLY northern hemisphere ice that CAN melt between now and the next 10/100/1000 years is the 4 million km square little bitty “cap” that is centered around the north pole between 80 north and 90 north. Therefore, the only possible albedo change/albedo feedback change that CAN occur MUST be limited to whatever change can occur if the ice at 80 north or above melts.

    Speculation about albedo changes caused by sea ice melting anywhere else on earth except the Arctic between and 80 north and 90 north, and the Antarctic ice shelves is meaningless: all other regions already have melted. What else can change in those regions to change albedo and reflected/absorbed energy?

    Now, the CAGW theists need to explain WHY the air temperatures above the sea ice have decreased when the sun is actually shining during the summer months up there (Mosher started above trying to do that) despite their CO2-temperature theories; and why the Antarctic sea ice areas are generally increasing while earth’s temperatures are “claimed” to be increasing ….

    But there can be NO “the sea ice is melting, the earth will heat up more” hysteria about positive feedback.

  76. Steven Mosher said:

    “Now smokey WRT ice. You are the one who claimed that ice and currents melted ice.
    but during the winter there is wind and there are currents.. whats up with that? no ice melting.”

    No, I said that wind and currents explain the decline in Arctic ice; you said they melted the ice.

    And:

    “Does c02 melt ice? nope. Does more c02 lead to a warmer planet? yes, even you agreed to that.”

    Yes, I agree that CO2 causes warming: insignificant, unmeasurable warming. It is not worth worrying about.

    What I worry about is how CO2 knows to melt Arctic ice — while leaving 90% of the world’s ice in the Antarctic alone. I guess CO2 has a mind of its own.☺

  77. “But these areas are already melting every year. ”
    No .. that is not true at all. They are melting MORE and melting EARLIER. This would allow more energy to be absorbed throughout the Arctic area. More energy = less ice = warmer.

    “Now, the CAGW theists need to explain WHY the air temperatures above the sea ice have decreased”
    Actually, you have to explain why you think this is so. I looked at the data from NOAA’s NCEP reanalysis ( http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries.pl?ntype=1&var=Air+Temperature&level=2000&lat1=90&lat2=80&lon1=0&lon2=360&iseas=0&mon1=0&mon2=0&iarea=1&typeout=1&Submit=Create+Timeseries). This was simply a matter of convenience — NOAA numbers are easy to download in monthly format. There should not be a big difference between NOAA & DMI.

    The results, quoted below, show INCREASES in the temperature for each and every month of the year. June is shows the smallest rate of increase (0.002 C/year or ~ 0.12 C increase in ~ 60 years) and June is the only month where the increases not statistically significant (p>0.05).

    Can you provide your numbers and analysis that show a decreasing temperature for 80N-90N for any month?

    PS. I think I see where you may have gotten your factoid. Looking a little, I see that as recently as 2010, the JUN slope was negative (although that decrease may well never have been statistically significant). If you go back to 2002 you can find negative slopes for JUL & AUG. The 1950’s were a warm decade; after a few cooler years, we are now warm (and warmer than the 1950’s).

    PPS This trend is NOT seen in mid-winter. DEC, JAN, & FEB have NEVER had a statistically significant negative trend.

    Results for: 1948-2012

    JAN = – 214 + 0.0927 YEAR

    Predictor Coef SE Coef T P
    Constant -213.90 34.55 -6.19 0.000
    YEAR 0.09266 0.01745 5.31 0.000

    FEB = – 187 + 0.0787 YEAR

    Predictor Coef SE Coef T P
    Constant -186.66 29.41 -6.35 0.000
    YEAR 0.07872 0.01485 5.30 0.000

    MAR = – 144 + 0.0581 YEAR

    Predictor Coef SE Coef T P
    Constant -144.27 30.65 -4.71 0.000
    YEAR 0.05810 0.01548 3.75 0.000

    APR = – 129 + 0.0548 YEAR

    Predictor Coef SE Coef T P
    Constant -129.34 26.19 -4.94 0.000
    YEAR 0.05477 0.01323 4.14 0.000

    MAY = – 62.9 + 0.0276 YEAR

    Predictor Coef SE Coef T P
    Constant -62.92 22.58 -2.79 0.007
    YEAR 0.02755 0.01140 2.42 0.019

    JUN = – 4.37 + 0.00225 YEAR

    Predictor Coef SE Coef T P
    Constant -4.369 7.318 -0.60 0.553
    YEAR 0.002251 0.003696 0.61 0.545

    JUL = – 12.6 + 0.00707 YEAR

    Constant -12.611 4.409 -2.86 0.006
    YEAR 0.007071 0.002227 3.18 0.002

    AUG = – 14.0 + 0.00678 YEAR

    Predictor Coef SE Coef T P
    Constant -13.993 5.982 -2.34 0.023
    YEAR 0.006783 0.003022 2.24 0.028

    SEP = – 118 + 0.0551 YEAR

    Predictor Coef SE Coef T P
    Constant -117.86 18.05 -6.53 0.000
    YEAR 0.055116 0.009116 6.05 0.000

    OCT = – 208 + 0.0955 YEAR

    Predictor Coef SE Coef T P
    Constant -208.42 26.97 -7.73 0.000
    YEAR 0.09554 0.01362 7.01 0.000

    NOV = – 171 + 0.0736 YEAR

    Predictor Coef SE Coef T P
    Constant -171.39 29.28 -5.85 0.000
    YEAR 0.07363 0.01479 4.98 0.000

    DEC = – 197 + 0.0850 YEAR

    Predictor Coef SE Coef T P
    Constant -197.25 28.24 -6.98 0.000
    YEAR 0.08503 0.01427 5.96 0.000

    PS. I think I see where you may have gotten your factoid. Looking a little, I see that as recently as 2010, the JUN slope was negative (although that decrease has not been statistically significant for a decade or more, I am pretty sure). If you go back to 2002 you can find negative slopes for JUL & AUG. The 1950’s were a warm decade; after a few cooler years, we are now warm (and warmer than the 1950’s). (This trend is NOT seen in mid-winter. DEC, JAN, & FEB have NEVER had a statistically significant negative trend.)

  78. Smokey says: “What I worry about is how CO2 knows to melt Arctic ice, while leaving 90% of the world’s ice in the Antarctic alone. I guess CO2 has a mind of its own.”

    I already pointed out your faulty reasoning on this meme once in this thread.

    If you want to talk about SEA ice (as you imply with your graph), the global trend is definitely DOWNWARD. SEA ice is distributed about 50-50 between the hemisphere. Each hemisphere grows in the winter and shrinks in the summer. But the north is losing sea ice faster than the south is gaining. (I will admit it is curious that the south has been gaining; it would be fascinating to dig into the causes.)

    If you want to talk about TOTAL ice (as you imply with your “90%” number), TOTAL ice is concentrated in the south. GRACE gravity measurements show a decrease in Antarctic ice (and Greenland ice for that matter). So total ice is also decreasing. CO2 is NOT “leaving alone” 90% of the earth’s ice.

    (Others have pointed out that GRACE might not be the last word in Antarctic ice measurements, but please stop conflating sea ice and total ice).

    So now you don’t have to worry. :-)

  79. Tim: (and others, for that matter)

    Where is that NOAA value taken? Specifically, what latitude range is it valid for? Exactly where were their thermometers positioned, and how many were used? (One can ask the same about the DMI measurements/models, but the DMI at least explicitly claims their values are for the same latitude that the southern boundary of the remaining sea ice is at.)

    How was it measured, and how were the results processed?

    2. The DMI values for 80 north latitude in the summer (when the sun is present to reflect from the ice, water, or ice+meltwater, and sea ice+openwater combination) that I am referring to were read directly from their website, (July 2010) for all days for the summer months for the period 1958-2010.

    To repeat, regardless of temperatures anywhere else in the world, ONLY actual local air temperatures above the sea ice at 80 north – if such air temperatures are to melt the sea ice or affect the sea ice melt rate – can be used to project, predict, or back-calculate past sea ice melt rates.

    Since NO sea ice is present anywhere else in the world at the current year south of 80 north latitude at the time of minimum sea ice extent, only the rough ice albedo and ocean water reflectivity of sunlight between 10 degrees and 0 at the September equinox matters in future projections of sea ice.

    Actually, since the instantaneous (highest) solar elevation only happens for a few fleeting moments each day at noon, the average solar angle each hour of each day between 80 north and the pole and the average air mass between the sun and the sea ice/water surface each hour of each day between 80 north and the poleis what is important in proving that “Increased sea ice loss will continue to lower future air temperatures between 80 north latitude and the north pole.”
    =====
    Smooth ocean water vs rough (wave-affected) ocean water?

    Argue that if you will, but provide actual measured albedo values for low light angles only!

    Even Judith Curry – in all of her Arctic papers – uses a single, constant, unchanging value for open ocean water: that single value for high angles of light measured at the equator. She has at least measured the changing albedo for snow under various conditions of melt after various times of fall at various angles of incident light at various amounts of cloud cover.
    ======
    Only a few measured values for actual “transmitted” solar energy at the Arctic surface under the solar incident angles are available (remember, even the north coast of Alaska at Point Barrow is some 10 degrees south of the southernmost sea ice extents at today’s sea ice minimum.) so available inbound solar radiation on even the clearest, most calm days of perfect visibility and perfect optical transmission must still cross 11 times more air mass above 80 north even at noon than what is crossed at the equator.

    No, even future complete loss of the Arctic sea ice will NOT increase the earth’s temperature.

    Sea ice loss cannot be used to prove global warming is due to increased CO2;
    sea ice loss cannot be used to prove global warming is now or will be catastrophic; and continued sea ice loss will not increase the future effects of global warming.in any future scenarios, regardless of CO2 levels.

  80. RA Cooke asks “Where is that NOAA value taken?”

    Basically the same place that the DMI results come from. Both are basically “hindcasts” of conditions based on a variety of data. The NOAA numbers are for all areas north of 80N (weighted by area). I’m not saying that the results are perfect, but YOU were the one touting the temperature trends in such reanalysis numbers. You are pretty much stuck either accepting the validity of both or rejecting the validity of both.

    “To repeat, regardless of temperatures anywhere else in the world, ONLY actual local air temperatures above the sea ice at 80 north – if such air temperatures are to melt the sea ice or affect the sea ice melt rate – can be used to project, predict, or back-calculate past sea ice melt rates.
    No, there are three other factors (at least) that can melt the ice.
    1) The ice can melt from below due to warm water. The coast of Noway stays nearly ice-free all year, due to the warm waters of the Gulf Stream. Warm water flowing into the Arctic Basin can melt the ice.
    2) Ice can melt by absorbing energy from radiation rather than simply by conduction. (As an extreme example, ice will melt a lot faster in your microwave oven when you turn it on, even though the air temperature stays the same). Similarly, if you increase the incoming radiation (either solar or thermal IR) the ice will melt faster even with surface temperatures (air and ice/water) hovering right near 0 C.
    3) As Smokey noted, wind and water currents matter. When the surrounding areas are choked with ice, wind and water will have less effect. The higher up the ice melts, the higher up it will be free to get carried away from the 80-90N region. While this is not specifically “melting the ice while it is within the 80-90N region” it can carry it to other warmer regions where it CAN melt.

    “Even Judith Curry – in all of her Arctic papers – uses a single, constant, unchanging value for open ocean water… ”
    I am not exactly sure what your point is, but I mostly agree. Albedo of water changes with angle: standard physics calculates (and experiments confirm) that light coming straight down gets almost entirely absorbed; light coming in at a glancing angle gets almost entirely reflected. Deciding on an appropriate angle to use is not as simple as finding the latitude, since waves “roughen” the surface and locally change the angle.

    The net effect of waves for the equator would be to (slightly) decrease absorption; the net effect near the poles would be to (greatly) increase absorption. Overall, a single value of albedo is probably a reasonable assumption.

    But that simply makes the albedo argument stronger. Ice is close to 1 for albedo. Glancing angle water is also close to 1, so the change is minimal when ice melts. But when waves change the average angle, then the water gets a lower albedo, making the change greater.

    “Sea ice loss cannot be used to prove global warming is due to increased CO2;”
    First of all, science never attempts to “proves” anything; science merely attempts to provide simple, coherent explanations that agree with observations.

    Beyond that philosophical point, I agree that sea ice loss is not the “smoking gun” that will convince people that increased CO2 is causing warming. But disappearing sea ice is part of a fairly coherent (but not yet conclusive) explanation of the effects CO2 on IR radiation and temperature.

  81. Since most past interglacials look to spike higher than this one, I’d predict that the next “ice free” will be during the next interglacial. About 130,000 years.

    The Younger Dryas event screwed the spike of warmth in this one (giving us a cold spike and nice stable plateau instead. (Most likely a comet / space rock impact in the ice sheet of N. America that both melted the sheet AND put enough crap into the air to cause peak clipping of the warming overshoot…)

    But as we are late in this interglacial time line, and things have been cooling for 6000 years (the Sahara is only green when very high temperatures over ocean water brings rains… and it was wet about 6,000 years ago. Since then we have cooled) we’re not going to have a hot spike and not going to melt the arctic. So “next time”…

  82. “It will be interesting to see if they are biased or open and whether I get to join the “players”.

    I urge WUWT readers to sign up and report your acceptances or rejections below.”

    Well, I signed up and still haven’t recieved a YES or NO as of yet. It has been over 24 hours, too.

  83. I wonder about why the Arctic has selective ice melt. Using Mosher picture above I see that most of the ice is to the West of 45W meridian line and its compliment 135East meridian. There is
    relatively little ice on the other half of the arctic ? This leads me to my other questions, how much ice disappears due to sublimation versus how much due to melt ? Is there an equivalent process in the below sea surface where such activities may also happen ? Ice melt and sublimating into the ocean water ?

  84. Politely, No – Waves do not have the influence of increasing absorbed energy from the sun at low incidence as you claim.

    Under clear skies, at the latitudes under discussion, the waves are not “breaking” nor extremely high. First, you need to understand that the Arctic waves are not breaking under clear skies, they are the typical simple sine wave of period 3 to 10 meters, height 1/10 meter to 3/4 meter. At solar angles between 8 degrees above the horizon and 2 degrees above the horizon, their point of highest incident angle for the time in question at minimum ice extents, the light will impact 1/5 of the wave at higher incidence angles, 1/3 will be in complete shadow, and 1/5 at lower incidence angle. The remainder will be unchanged in incidence angle. So, 20% may absorb more energy, but 80% of the exposed surface will have either the same or decreased energy absorbed. The higher the wave, the less energy can be absorbed and the higher the evaporation rate from the increased agitation of the surface.

    Look at the long term “midnight sun” photographs of the midnight sun at Point Barrow at June 22: 12 hours of reflected sunlight from the relatively calm water at low solar angles.

    Photos are misleading (all self-selected for clear and calm conditions) because the photographers at 80+ north will not be “out” taking pictures under stormy conditions; but, then again, under stormy conditions, the sunlight is NOT present to be re-reflected from the surface of the exposed ocean surface either. It has already been reflected from the top of the clouds, or absorbed in the thicker clouds typical of stormy conditions. And, of course, 50% of the time at minimum ice extents there is no sunlight at all.

  85. I tried to sign up and got a prompt acknowledgement and comment they were checking my credentials but I would hear from them soon, probably within 24 hours. So far, nothing more.

Comments are closed.