NASA finally admits it Arctic cyclone in August ‘broke up’ and ‘wreaked havoc’ on sea ice — Reuters reports Arctic storm played ‘key role’ in this season’s sea ice reduction.
‘The cyclone remained stalled over the arctic for several days…pushing [sea ice] south to warmer waters where it melted’
Monday, September 24, 2012 – By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
In a September 18 video posted by NASA on its website, they admit that the Arctic cyclone, which began on August 1, “wreaked havoc on the Arctic sea ice cover” by “breaking up sea ice.” (NASA story here)
Global warming activists have been giddy in their hyping of the satellite era record low Arctic sea ice extent while ignoring the satellite record sea ice expansion in the Antarctic.
Many climate activists have sought to downplay the significance that the Arctic cyclone played on this year’s summer sea ice in the Arctic. But this new inconvenient video report from NASA now makes the warmists’ attempt to deny the cyclones role in 2012’s Arctic sea ice conditions — impossible.
The September 18 NASA video notes: “A powerful storm wreaked havoc on the Arctic sea ice cover in August 2012. This visualization shows the strength and direction of the winds and their impact on the ice: the red vectors represent the fastest winds, while blue vectors stand for slower winds.”
Reuters news service filed a September 21 report based on NASA’s video admission titled: “NASA says Arctic cyclone played ‘key role’ in record ice melt.” The news segment details how the Arctic sea ice was reduced due to “a powerful cyclone that scientists say ‘wreaked havoc’ on ice cover during the month of August.” (Reuters on “Arctic Cyclone” — 0:47 second long segment — Rob Muir reporting.)
Reuters – Sept. 21 – “NASA says a powerful cyclone formed off the coast of Alaska in early August and moved toward the center of the Arctic ocean, weakening the already thin sea ice as it went.
A large section North of the Chukchi Sea was cut off by the churning storm and pushed south to warmer waters where it melted.
The cyclone remained stalled over the arctic for several days…Scientists say a similar storm decades ago would have had much less impact on the sea ice because they say the ice was not as vulnerable then as it is now.”
#
End Reuters news segment.
“Scientists say a similar storm decades ago would have had much less impact on the sea ice because they say the ice was not as vulnerable then as it is now.’
But of course…
”
it would be interesting to see a similar model of 2007….. and then compare to other years….
“Scientists say a similar storm decades ago would have had much less impact on the sea ice because they say the ice was not as vulnerable then as it is now.”
“would have” Not “did” The climate shill at Reuters can’t cite such a storm having less affect or they would have.
How does the AMO impact ice levels in the Arctic? Unless I am reading the graphs wrong we had the peek in AMO a few years back and are now heading to the bottom of the dip and have give or take another 12 years. Are we expecting to once again have an increase in ice as we move to the bottom?
@RobRoy –
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic-storm.html
8 out of 34 years had similar storms.
May I suggest that a Reference Page on the tropical troposphere, with a comparison of measured temperatures and “greenhouse” predicted temperatures, would better inform the CAGW debate? The bipolar nature of the cryosphere and the influence of megaprojects on the arctic portion encourage a selective and biased discussion.
It’s clearly the “it’s not as bad as it looks” case and it’s good that NASA admits it openly. The animation is great, too. In next few years we may expect higher summer minima than this year – but I’m afraid they’ll by mostly below 2007 anyway. It won’t just look that bad with the new minimum set now.
Would any one like to bet a 6-pack of Butte Creek Brewing’s finest IPA that this will never see the light of day on Andy Revkin’s DotEarth, the science pages of the NYTimes or any other MSM outlet? And certainly not on NPR’s Science Friday or the News Hour with Jim Lehrer!
It should also be noted that the weather pattern over the last 10+ years in the arctic has consistently pushed much of the perimeter “loose” ice into warmer water, hence adding to the vulnerability to such a storm. There have been several papers and posts on said subject that provide insight to a very complex system.
But 97% of the world’s scientists know that Arctic cyclones are caused by global warming, so therefore it’s worse than we thought.
/sarc
But we all know storms are caused by AGW. We’ll have more storms, more bigger storms, more costly storms, more unpredictable storms, storms in weird locations and at weird times. So I’d think that a storm breaking up the ice in-and-of itself is further proof of AGW…
Speaking of storms, we are at the peak of the hurricane season on the east coast. Where have all the hurricanes been? Did AGW take the season off (again)?
” the ice was not as vulnerable then as it is now.””
Nuclear subs managed to punch holes in it with no problem. Indeed, the USS Skate was the first sub to surface through the arctic winter ice in 1958,
So, CO2 has increased it’s arsenal when it decides to attach the precious Arctic Ice? Now it can zap it with heat, or use kinetic energy./sarc.
With all the excitement over ice coverage minima, I decided to look at the length of the melting period. Both NH and SH.
http://i49.tinypic.com/200ady8.png
I chose to plot Antarctic freezing period (ie one year less the melting) so that each point represents the same calendar period. Melting = 1 – freezing , so it’s the same information.
A few point stand out:
1. antarctic freezing has been generally increasing since the record begain in 1979.
2. arctic melting season got shorter in ’80s; longer in late 80’s, early 90’s and has been getting shorter since 1995.
3. Three longer melting outliers in the Arctic seem unrelated to shorter melting outliers.
4. Shorter term variations at each pole seem to correlate negatively, ie. longer melting matches longer freezing: polar see-saw.
Ignoring the odd outlier events, arctic melting season was longest in 1995. Yet another index that demonstrates a change of direction at the time.
UAH lower tropo rate of change also dropping since that year.
http://i45.tinypic.com/2lt1r4l.png
For all we know there might have been similar or worse storms in the arctic in the past decades and now the situation is what it is – record low and will probably be with a pretty big margin before the winter sets in again. I was expecting the ice sheet to “recover” from the low point in 2007.
I am waiting for ” … as predicted. According to the models, these cyclones will become more common and intense in the future as CO2 levels … “
So what happened to “da bears” ?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_c7S0Y3wBP9g/TUsOBSEe5EI/AAAAAAAAC40/k_Hv_GzTHaw/s400/polar-bear-on-ice.jpg
The storm pushed “da rowers” into safe harbor:
http://signalnews.com/arctic-row-storm-1046
I bet the bears are even smarter…
Watch the animation carefully and, you can spot the NorthWest Passage open up for 3 days around the 8th of September.
I wonder how many rowboats, kayaks, and other conveyances made it through…
From http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic-storm.html – “…there have only been about eight storms of similar strength during the month of August in the last 34 years of satellite records.”
And those previous storms had much less effect, due to considerably thicker ice in the past: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png?%3C?php%20echo%20time%28%29%20?
This doesn’t bode well for the effects of future storms, given the downward trends in Arctic ice volume, area, and extent.
CO2 is just insidious. It can infect brain behavior and skew statements of vast numbers of interest groups and science agencies.
Interestingly the news media in South Africa are saying it has been the coldest winter there in 100 years. Coupled with the Antarctic ice expansion this does seem to challenge some of the more hysterical estimates being bandied about.
Incidently, I note that the ‘hundreds of emails’ and ‘petition’ demanding Anthony’s removal from the PBS debate, seem to have been orchestrated by one specific AGW promoter. Surely evidence they are scared of losing their massive ‘research’ gravy train?
Jo Nova still suspended
http://joannenova.com.au/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi
Soooooo.Just how did the RCMP vessel the Roch get through in the 30’s? Rode a storm?
One good thing about all of this is that it has made some of the warmists come out into the open with even crazier alarmist pedictions of doom. The likes of Neven et al are going to look pretty dumb when the loss of energy caused by the storms’ churning over of the Arctic halocline results in an increase in ice and possibly a start in the recovery of sea ice. Next year is going to be really interesting as it looks likely that the Warmists have only been given a short respite by that summer cyclone…
dvunkannon says:
September 24, 2012 at 12:07 pm
@RobRoy –
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic-storm.html
8 out of 34 years had similar storms.
===========
Which 8 years? Did they correspond to the outliers in Arctic melting season:
http://i49.tinypic.com/200ady8.png
2007 and this year would be two matches.
Looking at the anomaly plot on WUWT ice page, the post 2007 period is notable for its much larger swings in ice extent. This is probably because ice is thinner, quick to melt and quicker to reform:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
What the media does not harp on about is that the summer max ice extent has been close to the 30 average since 2007. They just get all excited about a new minumum and ignore the rest of the year’s data.
Cherry picking at its best.
The overall trend since 2007 seems to be more ice More open water , more evaporation, negative feedback ?
If there’s supposed to be a “tipping point” is seems to be tipping the wrong way.
fretslider says:
September 24, 2012 at 12:34 pm
Nuclear subs managed to punch holes in it with no problem. Indeed, the USS Skate was the first sub to surface through the arctic winter ice in 1958,
______________________________________________________
USS Skate on North Pole in March 1959 (maybe not on North pole):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Skate_-_0857806.jpg
August 1959 (or maybe it was March?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Skate_(SSN-578)_surfaced_in_Arctic_-_1959.jpg
USS Hampton on North Pole in April 2004:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Hampton_North_Pole_19_April_2004.jpg
Maybe Wikipedia made a fool of me here but based on these photos I am really not sure arctic winters were all that much warmer in 1959 than today.
Scientists say a similar storm decades ago would have had much less impact on the sea ice because they say the ice was not as vulnerable then as it is now.
Sounds like I’ve heard this song before…
Let me see….. What was it? Ohhh yes!
Ahhhh, but I was so much older then…..I’m younger than that now.
My Back Pages – The Byrds, 1966
http://youtu.be/3FUGzwUTN80
@ P Solar… yes I have also been looking for the less obvious in the arctic and its clear that counter-intuative consequences are abundandant in the records which for me underpins what I already thought, we know proabably about 5% of what we need to know to understand the full mechanics of the poles…its a huge unknown ( obvious really given its remote locale ) yet the alarmists are clear, for them its settled…..
Can someone post a description of anyone (well, anyone important) saying the storm was irrelevant?
Everything I’ve read from NASA, NOAA, and friends is that the storm had an effect. But even without a storm or much else unusual, the ice was melting at a similar or greater rate to 2007. The thinking now appears to be that the storm just changed the melt from record-breaking to record-demolishing — at least, that’s what NOAA has been saying.
It may even have ‘wrought’ havoc with the ice.
It would be interesting to find out how much energy was lost to space while insulation from the arctic ice was gone Vs wile the ice was in place. Would satellites have a record of this?
We have always assumed that the arctic was covered with ice during the ice ages. Could the possibility exist that it was not, and that it was a major source of moisture for the ice sheets. Something very similar to the lake snow effect but on a larger scale?
Kasuha
Wiki is very hit or miss, I wouldn’t recommend it.
USS Skate (SSN-578) made submarine history on 11 August 1958 when it became the first submarine to surface at the North Pole.
http://www.navalhistory.org/2011/08/11/uss-skate-ssn-578-becomes-the-first-submarine-to-surface-at-the-north-pole.
“USS Skate (SSN-578) hung below the Arctic ice like a matchstick suspended an inch from the ceiling of a large room. A knot of sailors in the control room stared intently at an instrument inscribing patterns of parallel lines on a rolling paper tape. The pattern looked like an upside down mountain range.
Heavy ice, ten feet,” said one of the sailors.
Suddenly the lines converged into a single narrow bar. “Clear water!” the sailor called out.
Clear water!
“The overall trend since 2007 seems to be more ice More open water , more evaporation, negative feedback ?”
Oops, did not come out quite like I meant: more winter ice (close to 30y average); more open water in summer ( more evap. , more radiative loss to space) . To this extent at least, the larger swings brought about by thinner ice act as a negative feedback.
To look at the annual average ice cover (rather than cherry picking the minimum, as though it was somehow the definative metric of ice cover) , there has been a significant recovery since 2007. The evidence is that the neg. feedback is taking effect.
otsar says:
“It would be interesting to find out how much energy was lost to space while insulation from the arctic ice was gone Vs wile the ice was in place.”
I think open arctic water probably radiates a lot more heat than it takes in.
http://sun.iwu.edu/~gpouch/Climate/RawData/WaterAlbedo001.pdf
JoNova is BACK UP on a temporary server. ! :-))))
Barring something else unusual in this arctic melt season, it appears that the National Ice Center (NIC) ice charts have also reached the ice extent minimum for the year. As discussed last month, NIC produces operational ice charts with a different method than the microwave-based Indices that are exclusively reported in the media.
As of Sept. 21, 2012, NIC reports the minimum (so far):
8/10ths 3,275,795 sq. Km.
Marginal zone 923,871 sq. Km.
Ice Extent 4,199,666 sq. Km.
For comparison, NIC reports the 2007 minimum on Sept. 11, 2007:
8/10ths 3,547,333 sq. Km.
Marginal zone 1,018,054 sq. Km.
Ice Extent 4,565,387 sq. Km.
Whether comparing the pack ice (>80%) or the total extent including the marginal zone (10% to 80% concentration), 2012 is reported as ~8% less than 2007, or a reduction in arctic ice extent of 365,721 sq. Km.
Considering that 2012 started with a higher maximum in March than 2007 did (15.97 M. sq. Km. Vs. 15.81 M. sq. Km.), it truly is a remarkable single melt season this year. There was warm water from the Atlantic, a rare late summer cyclone and persistent air temperature near freezing, only now dropping towards normal for the time of year. Release of heat from more open water probably contributed to the latter effect. Still, the numbers say that a lot of ice remains in the Arctic, and it is not wise to extrapolate from one season to an ice-free arctic.
What remains is to see what effect this event may have on weather patterns, and what kind of recovery will be seen in the months ahead.
For those who want to know more about NIC ice charts:
“Arctic charts include information on sea ice concentration and edge position as well as (since about 1995)information on ice type. The charts are constructed by analysts using available in situ, remotely sensed, and model data sources. Data sources and methods of chart construction have evolved since 1972 resulting in inconsistencies in the data record; a
characteristic shared with most operational products. However the arctic-wide charts are the product of manual interpretation and data fusion, informed by the analyst’s expertise and by ancillary products such as climatologies and ice information shared by foreign operational ice services. They are therefore often more accurate, especially since the addition of synthetic aperture radar to data sources in the mid 1990s, than are the passive microwave derived sea ice data sets commonly used by researchers. This is especially true for ice edge location because of its operational importance. NIC provides charts free of charge on their Web site.”
“Often a wide marginal ice zone of 40% to 60% is not detected in passive microwave (this was noted anecdotally in earlier studies by the authors comparing passive microwave with ice chart and other analyses), and this appears to be the case here. Also, the NIC partial ice concentration for multiyear shows that thinner types are present in higher concentration near the edge, and passive microwave can fail to detect thinner, younger ice.”
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/ppp/conf_ppp/Fetterer/National_Ice_Center_Arctic_sea_ice_charts_and_climatologies_in_gridded_and_GIS_format.pdf
NIC charts are available here: http://www.natice.noaa.gov/products/products_on_demand.html
fretslider says:
September 24, 2012 at 2:14 pm
Wiki is very hit or miss, I wouldn’t recommend it.
_________________________________________________
I know it has to be taken with grain or salt but my point was the 2004 photo. It looked very like clear water to me, too. In April. 2004.
And Wiki is not the only source confirming it.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08767.htm
http://www.csp.navy.mil/asl/Icex04.htm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/12150610@N08/2089039773/
I am really not that kind of conspiracy theorist to believe all these sources have faked that photo. They are likely not involved in AGW business in any way. So for me personally it’s end of the “submarines surfaced on North Pole in 1959 so it must have been less ice than today there” theories.
As I indicated in the Open Thread I think the storm may very well provide help in reestablishing the larger ice cap. It has been reported that the storm piled ice onto itself in many places. This essentially turns young, thin ice into thicker, older ice. As the freeze occurs this year that ice will be intermixed with the new thin ice giving it additional support. I am calling it “reinforced ice”. If we have a couple of years without storms and with wind conditions that support ice development we could see a return to much larger minimums sooner than I previously predicted (2020).
I also agree that the thinner ice made it easier for the wind to break it apart. However, it should be noted that winds favorable for melting started around mid-March and continued almost unabated from that point on (I pointed that out in a comment in mid-April). The big reason the ice was weak was already due to the winds.
From my viewpoint there’s almost nothing in the story of Arctic ice that supports global warming. It’s more related to ocean oscillations and wind.
I also think there’s another factor that will need to be watched in addition to the additional radiation from open water. The open water should allow more evaporation which should lead to more early snow on the continents around the Arctic. This will increase the albedo even though there is less sea ice. Another negative feedback.
Justthinkin says:
September 24, 2012 at 1:23 pm
Soooooo.Just how did the RCMP vessel the Roch get through in the 30′s? Rode a storm?
No it didn’t happen.
They did get through between 1940 and 1942 though, being frozen in during the winters.
In 1944 the St Roch did make it through for the first time in one season, a routine event these days.
Piers Corbyn of http://www.weatheraction.com discusses the facts and fictions surrounding Climate Change, and Ice in the Arctic.
http://youtu.be/47ucpzabzFM
(my earlier post seems to have disappeared so sorry for eventual repost)
fretslider says:
September 24, 2012 at 2:14 pm
Wiki is very hit or miss, I wouldn’t recommend it.
_________________________________________________________
I know Wiki must be used carefully, but here my point was the 2004 image.
Clear water. In April. 2004.
And I’m not a conspiracy theorist enough to believe all the sources hosting that photo have faked it.
http://www.csp.navy.mil/asl/Icex04.htm
To me this just means the 1959 photo of the submarine on clear water on the pole is no proof of anything related to Arctic ice. There were holes in it by then, there are holes in it today. There may have been holes in it all the time, the list of submarine visits to North Pole is pretty long and I have not checked if they all surfaced or not and in what conditions.
I doubt the veracity of the whole Skate article for a simple reason.
Top Gear drove to the ACTUAL north pole in July 2007 and found no clear water away from shore the entire trip.. nor was there land in the background of their photo taken at the pole.
The Navy has always lied.
Is there are legend for colour vs wind speed in this NASA video? – There doesn’t appear to be a legend at the NASA link either.
Is there a legend for colour vs wind speed in this NASA video? – There doesn’t appear to be a legend at the NASA link either.
The Gray Monk says:
September 24, 2012 at 1:12 pm
[…]
Incidently, I note that the ‘hundreds of emails’ and ‘petition’ demanding Anthony’s removal from the PBS debate, seem to have been orchestrated by one specific AGW promoter. Surely evidence they are scared of losing their massive ‘research’ gravy train?
********************************************************************************************
Please support this contention with (a) link(s) or other method. Perhaps to tips n notes?
I am sure plenty of people on WUWT would be interested if this is the case.
Kasuha says:
September 24, 2012 at 1:38 pm
USS Hampton on North Pole in April 2004:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Hampton_North_Pole_19_April_2004.jpg
Is the North Pole that stripey thing at the end of the gangplank? However did they find that amongst all that ice?
So I wonder how this affects the opening line of the Nature article, denouncing extreme weather = climate.
“As climate change proceeds — which the record summer melt of Arctic sea-ice suggests it is doing at a worrying pace — nations, communities and individual citizens may begin to seek compensation for losses and damage arising from global warming.” -Nature 9/19/2012 http://www.nature.com/news/extreme-weather-1.11428
Richard M
The open water should allow more evaporation which should lead to more early snow on the continents around the Arctic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I dunno. The amount of water vapour that the air can hold at 0 degrees C is very small:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/humidity-ratio-air-d_686.html
On the other hand, that means that there’s very little water vapour to act as a greenhouse gas so I agree with your comment about negative feedback. The open water will radiate WAY more energy than would the ice, and reflect more from the sun due to low angle of incidence, and there is an absence of water vapour (THE dominant GHG) to absorb and re=radiate it. Plus, salt water has a different max density point than fresh water. The higher density at a lower temp means the colder surface water actually sinks before it freezes, bringing warmer water up from the bottom. This process continues until ALL the water is at the freezing point from top to bottom, THEN ice starts to form. So LOTS of energy getting beamed out to space and the dynamics of salwater ensuring that as much warm water (by arctic standards) as possible is brough to surface for as long as possible. When the process ends… kaboom, lotsa ice fast. And colder than usual water underneath it that will get recirculated elsewhere. Eventually.
The storm is not really relevant: the cyclone would not have “broken” up the sea ice if the sea-ice had been several metres thick.
What the storm does is demonstrate that thin ice is present when satellite imagery might suggest that a lot of the sea is covered by ice. The storm gives a thinness indicator of prior and future satellite imagery. What we should look for is evidence that 2007 was a quiet wind summer. If it were, then the equivalent storm-compressed area of ice in 2007 may have been less than the summer of 2012.
The stat of more relevance, as it does not reflect storm influences, is the area of volume of meltwater and iceberg discharge of Greenland this year. Greenland (and Antarctica) have to move to tripling or quadrupling their fluid release rate to bring the seas up by 1.0 m in 2100 (that is just for the 2060 or so average of the century).
Sea-ice extent is a function of insolation plus underlying water temperatures, surface air temperatures and winds (winds can bring in warmer air masses, of course, so that the globe is not warmer, but where the warm air goes is warmer, like the Arctic). The Greenland, non-shelf ice mass melts only because insolation and air temperatures are greater (with the previous caveat).
Phil. says:
September 24, 2012 at 3:14 pm
In 1944 the St Roch did make it through for the first time in one season, a routine event these days.
How many icebreakers are needed for the routine?
YouTube video of the cyclone
pjrindigo:
You forgot your /sarc tag. (At least 97% of all climate scientists will believe everything you said)
Does Soros now “own” PBS?
numerobis says:
September 24, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Can someone post a description of anyone (well, anyone important) saying the storm was irrelevant?
Everything I’ve read from NASA, NOAA, and friends is that the storm had an effect. But even without a storm or much else unusual, the ice was melting at a similar or greater rate to 2007. The thinking now appears to be that the storm just changed the melt from record-breaking to record-demolishing — at least, that’s what NOAA has been saying.
Exactly! The ice looked crazy sparse much earlier than August 1 and I said so on this site. It would have dropped below 4 million sq. km. anyway.
I love animations like that. Sure wish I could create them.
Phil. says:
September 24, 2012 at 3:14 pm
“a routine event these days.”
If you do not provide evidence for this (without icebreakers), I am calling you a liar.
Where is James Abbott? Where is barry? Where are all the warmists who said the storm was irrelevant. You guys need to stand up and admit you were wrong.
No more Mr. Nice Skeptic. I’ve had it with these BS artists.
dvunkannon says:
8 out of 34 years had similar storms.
KR says:
“…there have only been about eight storms of similar strength during the month of August in the last 34 years of satellite records.”
You both seem to have left out an important word from the article: “estimates”‘
The person being quoted “estimates” 8 out of 34. It would be interesting to know exactly how many out of 34 instead of a SWAG.
Frederick Michael says:
September 24, 2012 at 4:24 pm
You do not know much about the Arctic and how floating ice behaves, do you.
of course when I came on here to warn about the storm commenters:
doubted there was a storm. or thought it was normal. or denied it would have an impact.
given that the ice was already below previous years at that time it was obvious that record would be smashed rather than merely passed.
going forward the weakened pack will continue to be vulnerable
moreover more open water will lead to more storms like this where winds that previously could do nothing now will move ice to waters warmed by agw
where it will melt. no soot required
Steven Mosher says:
September 24, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Extraordinary claims, blah, blah. You know the rest. I’ll be waiting.
Steve Mosher you missed this as a credible explanation on why there was a decline in the first place:
The Dirty Little Secret About Arctic Ice
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/09/23/the-dirty-little-secret-about-arctic-ice/
Did those earlier storms occur as late in the melt season as this one did?
Here’s an excerpt what the NSIDC said on Sept 19th:
.
Apart from the lesser extent the ice has been thinning for years – that makes it more vulnerable to winds, waves, warmth.
As for the increase in sea ice in the Antarctic, note that the amount on LAND is dropping.
In any case, both poles play a role and to imply that the decrease in one is irrelevant because of the increase in another is like thinking you don’t need to cover your head in winter because you put on extra socks.
Mrmethane says:
September 24, 2012 at 4:16 pm
Does Soros now “own” PBS?
—-
No, the govt owns PBS. However, it does appear that Soros owns the govt.
Steven Mosher;
moreover more open water will lead to more storms like this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why?
I’m a little sheepish about how distrustful I am, concerning Cryosphere Today’s graphics, however I couldn’t help notice a large mass of ice, thirty by twelve miles and up to 82 feet thick, was not noticed by the Ctyosphere “map,” yet stopped a drilling operation.
http://www.adn.com/2012/09/14/2625011/ice-still-delays-shell-arctic.html.
In my grumpy, suspitious manner I started trying to learn more about this mass of ice: Where it came from, where it was going, how big it would look in a Satellite picture, how you can get ice 82 feet thick in area described as “ice free” by Cryosphere Today, and (so far) haven’t learned much about the ice, but I did learn there are other people so grumpy and suspicious they make me look like a jolly, old Santa.
It turned out the same story had been picked up by a lot of environmentalists, on Greenpeace and WWF sites, and those guys have no fondness at all for Royal Dutch Shell and that company’s attempts to drill in the arctic. It was very interesting reading the comments on their sites.
One view was that Mother Nature was standing up to defend the Arctic from the evil oil companies, “just like in the movie Avatar.” It was Mother Nature who sent that ice.
However another interesting view was that the ice never existed in the first place; the thirty by twelve mile mass was a fabrication invented by Royal Dutch Shell to save face, after Greenpeace made it impossible for a support vessel to arrive in the Arctic in time for the drilling. (Some vessel that was suppose to “contain” a spill, if one happened.???)
In any case, I remain curious about the thirty by twelve mile mass of ice, that either did or never did exist, and never showed up on maps.
How many of these masses that don’t exist are floating around up there, and, if they don’t exist, how can we count them?
What is so bad with clear water ? I prefer my garden to be green summertime.
@RayG
How exactly are you hedging your bet?
Because if it only has to be on any one of the outlets you mentioned, you were a loser even before making the wager
Revkin talked about this six weeks ago:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/a-closer-look-at-ice-impacts-of-a-rare-arctic-summer-storm/
Why even have this post?
Arctic sea ice is declining, and so you’d expect a new record every few years. There is no story in exactly why this year happened to be the record year. You could equally well have run a story about how the weather conditions in 2008 – 2011 were not conducive to a record melt.
Why do you bother?
[Reply: Anthony knows how to run a successful site. Feel free to start your own blog, then you can decide what articles to post. — mod.]
D Marshall says:
September 24, 2012 at 5:45 pm
“In any case, both poles play a role and to imply that the decrease in one is irrelevant because of the increase in another is like thinking you don’t need to cover your head in winter because you put on extra socks.”
This knife cuts both ways D Marshall. It is the warmists that are claiming the Arctic ice melt is the “canary in the coal mine”.
More like a canard in a coal mine .
Scientists say a similar storm decades ago would have … not been noticed.
Cat: http://postimage.org/image/elzkgmqdt/full
Pigeons: http://postimage.org/image/mq7oldcsx/full
Argue amongst yourselves, cows will be home for milking soon. Now where did I put that chocolate pipe wrench? Need to mic the clearance on the parlour stall doors again.
John Brookes says:
September 24, 2012 at 6:15 pm
Why even have this post?
To inflame your leftist academic myopia.
I’m going to see if you had the cobbles to respond to my post to you on the other thread.
John Brookes says:
September 24, 2012 at 6:15 pm
Nope.
The magnetic pole continues it very rapid march towards the geographic north pole.
Fascinating video. The storm is a one-off that may have increased the breakup of sea ice. But Arctic is warming and Arctic sea ice has been diminishing at the rate of ten percent per decade since satellite have been recording it. That is because of warm Gulf Stream water that Atlantic currents are carrying into the Arctic Ocean [E&E 22(8):1069-1083 (2011)]. The warming started suddenly at the turn of the twentieth century, paused for thirty years at mid-century, then resumed, and is still going strong. Prior to that there was nothing but two thousand years of slow cooling in the Arctic. There was no parallel increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide at the start of the warming and this eliminates the greenhouse effect because it would violate the radiation laws of physics. The warming started most likely as a result of a rearrangement of the North Atlantic current system at the start of the century. There is no way the greenhouse effect can be turned on and off as happened in mid-century but it is easy to sea how a temporary return of the original flow pattern of currents could explain it. Arctic warming has been a poster child of global warming advocates as proof that global warming is happening. Since this can no longer be done we have to ask what other actual observations of nature are left that prove the existence of greenhouse warming. Off hand I cannot think of any. Furthermore, Ferenc Miskolci has empirically proved that the enhanced greenhouse effect that is supposed to be the cause of the greenhouse effect does not even exist. He used NOAA weather balloon database that goes back to 1948 and observed that the infrared transparency of the atmosphere stayed constant for 61 years while atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by 21.6 percent during this interval. This means that the addition of all that carbon dioxide to air had no effect whatsoever on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. It follows that predictions of warming by models using the greenhouse effect are simply invalid. And emission control laws passed that rely on these predictions have been passed under false pretenses.
So that’s weather and not climate? Just for the record and I know this is a one off: When does a newly established pattern (of weather or sea ice distribution) become recognised as a new climatic condition. Just asking so that we don’t end like frogs in boiling water.
Just to put the alarming fears to rest, I am posting this again.
http://drtimball.com/2012/2012-arctic-ice-melt-claims-distorted-and-inaccurate-its-the-wind-stupid/
davidmhoffer says:
September 24, 2012 at 5:51 pm
Steven Mosher;
moreover more open water will lead to more storms like this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why?
>>>>>>>>
C’mon Mosher. Why?
Or was that yet another drive by snark that you can’t be bothered to substantiate? Or just can’t?
There would have been a record low even if the storm had not occurred. Storms of this magnitude are not unusual either, 8 / 34 years apparently. You can’t blame a single storm for reducing the Arctic sea ice extent by 6 times the normal standard deviation. Changes of the magnitude are frankly very scary. A massive positive feedback mechanism been activated and it is probably related to albedo.
Another drive-by posting from Mosher……
Simon;
Changes of the magnitude are frankly very scary. A massive positive feedback mechanism been activated and it is probably related to albedo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. Ice loss at the angle of incidence of the sun at this time of year ensures that LESS energy will be absorbed by the water than the ice if it was present. Is this a positive feedback? Or negative?
2. The exposed water will radiate considerably more energy to space than the ice would have if it was present. Is this a positive feedback? Or negative?
3. Open water that is very cold sucks CO2 out of the atmosphere like crazy. Is this a positive feedback? Or negative?
4. What, exactly, is such a bad thing about ice melting? Can you grow food on ice? Can ocean plants thrive with no sunshine? Can fish survive in water that is never exposed to the air in order to replenish oxygen? Can sea mammals surface and breath with the ice there? What, exactly, is good about an ocean of ice?
prjindigo says; “I doubt the veracity of the whole Skate article for a simple reason. Top Gear drove to the ACTUAL north pole in July 2007”
No, they drove to the 1996 location of the Magnetic North Pole.
prjindigo says; “I doubt the veracity of the whole Skate article for a simple reason. Top Gear drove to the ACTUAL north pole in July 2007″
Is it because they cannot tell the whole story, or is it because they don’t know the whole story.
Naturally, in the next few years, when the arctic minimum is reached and it’s not as low as this year, the warmists will write off this year as an anomaly, due to the effect of the storm. This year that’s not convenient. Next year it will be.
David Ball says:
September 24, 2012 at 5:17 pm
Frederick Michael says:
September 24, 2012 at 4:24 pm
You do not know much about the Arctic and how floating ice behaves, do you.
If you want to play ad hom, try a less scientific website.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/27/august-arcus-forecast-poll-what-will-the-september-nsidc-arctic-minimum-extent-be/#comment-707222
The oldest ice is melting the fastest. Only one mechanism can cause this differential melting of older ice, the effect of solar insolation on embedded black carbon in the ice which accumulates at the surface as solar insolation melts the ice, decreasing its albedo.
Note in the animation at the link below that the bulk of the decline starts in 1998, the year of the Russian financial crisis, which resulted in the bulk of the polluting Soviet era industry being shut down. Note also, almost all the decrease in multi-year ice is on the Russian side of the Arctic ocean.
The increased insolation is caused by decreased aerosol and particulate seeded clouds (from the industries shut down).
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/thick-melt.html
It is pretty clear to me that CO2 is not impacting Arctic sea ice because if it were it would be far more obvious during the winter than during the summer. This is because during the winter direct heating from the sun is extremely low and air temperatures are entirely due to heat being trapped in the atmosphere due to the greenhouse effect. Thus increasing CO2 should have proportionately more imapct during the Arctic winter. However, satellite data shows that Winter arctic sea ice extent hasn’t changed much.
Looking at the summer arctic sea ice extent you can see that it varies considerably from one year to another. Obviously there is something impacting sea ice extent that has nothing to do with the continuous upward trend in CO2. This yearly variation in sea ice level can be considered “noise” in the signal you are looking for – but how big is the amplitude of this noise signal compared to the CO2 signal we are interested in? Nobody so far has explained.
It is clear that arctic ice was much lower this year than last year due to something other than CO2. There may be a CO2 related trend involved as well, but while climatologists are refusing point-blank to look more carefully at what the data is obviously telling them they won’t spot what it is. The data is crying out for real analysis, and someone could make themselves quite a name from it.
It seems that climate in the Arctic is changing, but it is equally obvious that changes in Arctic sea ice extent has little to do with the gradual industrialisation of humanity. Something else is impacting Arctic sea ice greatly and it would be very interesting to know what it is.
Undersea volcanic activity anyone?
What? Admit? No they did not “admit”, they told you outright, from the very beginning.
The warmists sites also discussed the role of the storm and it’s importance from the very beginning.
Nobody seems to have discussed the fact that winter Arctic temperatures were much warmer than usual last year. Thus the Arctic seas may have been a bit warmer than normal – aiding in the melt.
However, does this warmer winter mean warming or cooling? We have had very cold winters in the N.H. the last three years, caused by the jetstreams moving further south (as I pointed out a couple of years ago). But if we are having colder winters, then the energy (heat) must go somewhere. The heat sink for the N.H. is the Arctic, where 24 hr cloudless darkness can allow gazillions of watts to radiate away.
Is this not the cause of the wamer winter temperatures in the Arctic? Is this not a contributory factor, in the summer melt? (the fact that the N.H. is losing more energy than normal.)
P.S. I find Piers Cobyn’s explanation that the satellites cannot easily pick up broken ice, and are therefore underestimating the ice-loss interesting. Anything to back this up? I suppose the proof will be Corbyn’s assertion that these drifting floes will re-ice very quickly, and so there will be a more rapid freeze than normal.
.
Comments above by dmhoffer and ryan show why we are talking about the Arctic. Warmists and skeptics look at the world through very different lenses. Warmists see positive feedbacks and tipping points everywhere, and the Arctic is one of their big ones. Skeptics see negative feedbacks characteristic of a climate system oscillating between stable states.
This year’s melt is exciting because maybe, just maybe, Nature is conducting an experiment in the Arctic from which we can learn. A step-change of 8% reduction of ice extent from the previous 2007 low presents an opportunity to test over the coming years how the climate responds: either accelerating the melting, or recovering the ice. Also, we shall see how the weather is impacted by more open water this year.
Kasuha
Clear water at the pole in 1958 – why do you insist on using inaccurate wiki info? – seems pretty much the same as clear water at the pole in 2004. It’s nothing new.
I’m taking the same view toward this story, and toward Arctic sea ice decline, as I do to all the climate change issues: whatever conclusion I come to will be based upon reality as best I can tell it, not on models.
I am skeptical about land based temperature records because the satellite records, and analyses by Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels among others (not to mention the work of Anthony Watts), suggest the land based record is too high. I am skeptical about sea level rise scares because sea level is currently rising at 3.1 mm annually, less than a foot a century, and about the same as last century.
And I am skeptical that it is mainly storminess that causes Arctic sea ice decline, since sea ice has been declining for as long as we have been able to measure it (about 1979). Better questions would be:
1. What are the relative roles of black carbon vs. warming gases such as CO2 and methane? There are a number of papers suggesting that substantial amounts of warming in the Arctic are due to black carbon falling on the ice, making it darker, hence it absorbs warmth and makes ice melt more quickly. There must have been much less black carbon back in the day, before the advent of diesels and other sources of these emissions.
2. What are the long term effects of less Arctic sea ice in the summer than before?
As always, when new facts come along, I am quite willing to adjust my thinking.
Frederick Michael says:
September 24, 2012 at 11:30 pm
How is pointing out a lack of understanding an ad hom?
Frederick Michael says:
September 24, 2012 at 11:30 pm
And welcome back to the MOST scientific website. People get to ask the HARD questions here, from either point of view.
John says:
September 25, 2012 at 5:59 am
1. What are the relative roles of black carbon vs. warming gases such as CO2 and methane? There are a number of papers suggesting that substantial amounts of warming in the Arctic are due to black carbon falling on the ice, making it darker, hence it absorbs warmth and makes ice melt more quickly. There must have been much less black carbon back in the day, before the advent of diesels and other sources of these emissions.
The reality is that there are multiple factors affecting sea ice. All are variable as well. Attribution becomes difficult.
Looks like the cyclone isn’t the only spin on the record low ice cover in the arctic. One storm broke up the ice on August 1st with more than a month left in the melt season in the arctic and now global warming doesn’t exist because of that? I didn’t realize that global warming meant that only solar driven melting of sea ice counts as data. I don’t care how the ice melted, the fact is that it *did* melt and indeed at a record level, so pull your heads out of the sand and admit that the climate is a changin’. Sheesh!
typo: “One storm broke up the ice on August 1st”, changed to : “One storm broke up the ice on August 10th”.
@David Ball – And what causes changes in the Polar Front? You’ve just stepped back one step in the causal chain, but you haven’t explained anything thereby. Eventually, you are going to bump up against the fact that there is more heat in the atmosphere caused by energy capture by GHGs put there by human beings.
@Ron C. You write:
“A step-change of 8% reduction of ice extent from the previous 2007 low presents an opportunity to test over the coming years how the climate responds: either accelerating the melting, or recovering the ice.”
Yeah, we did that experiment in 2007 when there was another big step change to a record low. Result of experiment: ice extent bumped along near the same low levels, then dropped to a new low 5 years later.
“Also, we shall see how the weather is impacted by more open water this year.”
Snowmaggedon? Snowpocalypse? Snowzilla? Every winter since the 2007 low, and this past year the killer cold in Central Europe. The Warm Arctic, Cold Continents theory in action.
@Philip Bradley, John – I agree that black carbon is a clear cause, but black carbon increases are also clearly anthropogenic, and perhaps more controllable than CO2 emissions.
The further we are from glacial period conditions, the better.
If we look at the daily ice extent data and filter it to remove 6m and 12m variations we get this:
http://i50.tinypic.com/24enw2c.png
All the wailing about the new minimum carefully avoids looking at ALL the data. The winter recoveries in recent years have been just as spectacular, reaching the 30y average this April.
The plunging melting ended in 2007. Someone just forgot to tell us.
P. Solar says:
September 24, 2012 at 12:35 pm
How do you decide when melting stops/starts?
The freezing at the pole begins whilst the perifery of the ice is still melting.
July 31st
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/NPEO2012/WEBCAM2/ARCHIVE/npeo_cam2_20120728123741.jpg
Aug 2nd
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/NPEO2012/WEBCAM2/ARCHIVE/npeo_cam2_20120802003826.jpg
David Ball says:
September 25, 2012 at 6:31 am
Frederick Michael says:
September 24, 2012 at 11:30 pm
How is pointing out a lack of understanding an ad hom?
David, you need to think about this a minute. You said I don’t understand some things. You don’t know me, and so I sent you a link to a previous comment that shows that I do understand the very things you said I don’t understand. Your response makes me doubt you took the 10 seconds to follow the link. You didn’t “point out” anything. You didn’t make any logical points at all; you just made a false claim about what I understand.
You have been insulting a bunch of regular contributors here, some much more qualified than I. You are doing to this to people who are, I assume, on your side in the larger issues. This brings you perilously close to qualifying as a troll. What’s up with that?
I’m way too busy for this now and won’t be back to this thread. So, if you reply, don’t expect me to see it.
Just think.
@dvunkannon
Actually, there was a recovery in ice 2008-2010 almost back to 2006 minimum levels, and the 2012 maximum exceeded 2006. Then down again last year and this. For how long?
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/products/ice_extent_graphs/arctic_daily_ice_extent.html
Brendan says: September 25, 2012 at 6:55 am
Looks like the cyclone isn’t the only spin on the record low ice cover in the arctic. I don’t care how the ice melted, the fact is that it *did* melt and indeed at a record level, so pull your heads out of the sand and admit that the climate is a changin’. Sheesh!
———————————————-
If Global Warming was responsible, then why is Antarctic sea ice at record high levels?
You cannot have this both ways, you know – warming causes ice-melt and ice-buildup. What you have not grasped yet is that Climate Chande is not all about warming (for there has been no warming since 1997). Climate Change is also about changing atmospheric circulations and jetstream paths. These can greatly effect tropospheric weather patterns (and regional temperatures) without any global heat gain or loss.
.
Arno Arrak says:
“But Arctic is warming and Arctic sea ice has been diminishing at the rate of ten percent per decade since satellite have been recording it.”
That’s it! There is a 100% correlation between longer satellite studies and reduction in ice in the Arctic. Time to demand a reduction in satellite studies.
@Ron C. – My point was that in a larger perspective, post-2007 extent didn’t “recover” in any significant sense, such as getting back within a standard deviation of the average. It stayed low and has now gone lower. So if your suggestion that experience will tell us is correct, experience has spoken already
@dvunkannon
Fair enough. I stay away from averages, because they are dependent on the period selected. You are probably referring to the usual 1979-2000 average, but this followed a significant Arctic cooling period and ice build-up from 1940-1970, which was preceded by warming 1910 to 1940. Which should be the larger perspective?
“Understanding Arctic temperature variability is essential for assessing possible future melting of the Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice and Arctic permafrost. Temperature trend reversals in 1940 and 1970 separate two Arctic warming periods (1910–1940 and 1970–2008) by a significant 1940–1970 cooling period. Analyzing temperature records of the Arctic meteorological stations we find that (a) the Arctic amplification (ratio of the Arctic to global temperature trends) is not a constant but varies in time on a multi-decadal time scale, (b) the Arctic warming from 1910–1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970–2008 warming, and (c) the Arctic temperature changes are highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on a multi-decadal time scale.”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038777.shtml
David Ball says:
September 24, 2012 at 4:43 pm
Phil. says:
September 24, 2012 at 3:14 pm
“a routine event these days.”
If you do not provide evidence for this (without icebreakers), I am calling you a liar.
Really, it would be more polite to have evidence before you make such a charge. The policy of this blog is for civility and courtesy not rudeness and insults!
To educate you about a subject on which you clearly have no knowledge.
St Roche II commemorated the trips of the St Roche in the 40s in crossing the NW passage taking about 3 weeks in 2000.
Cloud 9 sailed the passage in 2007 in 73 days, they repeated the journey in 2009.
From that time interest increased in sailing the passage and since then half a dozen or more yachts sail it every year. I followed a number of yachts making their attempts in 2009: Silent Sound, Norwegian Blue, Fiona, Fleur Australe, Ocean Watch, Bagan, Baloum Gwen, one notable event was four of those yachts anchoring together in Cambridge Bay, two heading east and two heading west, they all completed the trip, Baloum Gwen had completed the trip west the year before and was on the return trip. The RX2 tried to make the trip through both the NE Passage and the NW Passage in the same summer but having completed the NE Passage were detained by Russian officials for bureaucratic reasons so had to complete the trip through the NW Passage the next year (2009). In 2010 two yachts did complete both passages in one summer, Northern Passage and Peter I. Several other yachts made the NWP that year: Sarema and Solanus for example. As I recall about 16 boats attempted the passage in 2011, but it’s not as noteworthy anymore. This year Polar Bound and Belzebub II completed the journey through the McClure strait. So yes, such crossings are routine these days, if such crossings couldn’t be made in a summer it would be noteworthy.
dvunkannon says:
September 25, 2012 at 7:12 am
“You’ve just stepped back one step in the causal chain, but you haven’t explained anything thereby.”
You need to explain this statement. Where have I “stepped back”? Which post are you referring to?
Phil. says:
September 25, 2012 at 4:17 pm
Really Phil? A handfull (only 57 vessels have actually transited the NW passage) of small yachts is routine ? You gave the distinct impression that it is clear sailing with no distinction between commercial and private vessels. Clearly it is NOT routine, and I don’t care if your feelings are hurt. I stand by my assertion.
http://northwestpassage2012.blogspot.ca/2012/07/ice-thwarts-northwest-passage-sailing.html
http://www.greygooseadventures.com/nwp/index.html
Looks like a real challenge. This fellow understands what he is up against.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/11/nw-passage-not-so-busy-after-all/
I know Phil. does not consider WUWT? a reliable source, but here you go.
I also posit that these transits are increasing in recent times NOT due to less ice, but technological advances in vessel capability, AND an increase in the number of people attempting the journey.
Phil. wants you to believe it is due to agw.
fretslider says:
September 24, 2012 at 2:14 pm
“USS Skate (SSN-578) made submarine history on 11 August 1958 when it became the first submarine to surface at the North Pole.”
That makes sense as there was a strong negative NAO that summer:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/norm.nao.monthly.b5001.current.ascii.table
Actually, if you look at the graphs there wasn’t anything particularly unusual about 2012 sea ice extent until late August. So if the storm on 1st August pushed the ice south and it took a while to melt as the scientists at NASA have suggested, that would entirely explain 2012 record low sea ice extent. So, global warming in September but not in July. Hmm, that don’t add up. What it does suggest is that sea ice extent is indeed highly impacted by wind speed and direction not just for days but for months and this is a major, unquantifiable noise factor when looking for any underlying and clearly much smaller CO2 signals, before we look into the impact of varying ocean currents. So the wind is pushing the ice towards any possible dangerous tipping points – but we don’t seem too concerned about that. Maybe we think the variable wind has been around for millenia so we don’t need to worry about it – but if that is so, what is the real variation in wind driven ice melt over millenia rather than over a decade?
There is, I notice, a tendency to show charts comparing sea ice extent 1979 – 2000 with 2000 to 2012. This suggests the last decade warmer in the summer than the previous two decades – but does that mean this decade is unusual, or the previous two decades were unusual? Not possible to say because the sample size is too small. In any case, we know that the Northern Hemisphere hasn’t got appreciably warmer over the last 12 years even by Team AGW standards so it isn’t the best decade to go blaming melting ice on global warming!
Ryuan wrote:
Or over the last year, or over the last week, or since last Tuesday. Therefore, there is no global warming. /sarc
The “black” soot and particulate hypothesis seems to have some issues for me. Rain and snow both need a “nucleus” to form. In the Arctic it would most likely be snow that forms around the particulate considering temperatures at the pole. Snow increases albedo. “Black” soot seems like a non sequitor, but perhaps someone could show me where I am mistaken in my assumptions.
Ryan wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/24/nasa-on-arctic-sea-ice-record-low-storm-wreaked-havoc-on-the-arctic-sea-ice-cover/#comment-1088247
So your reasoning is that under conditions, when less energy is available to melt ice compared to summer, when there is a negative net downward flux of energy from the atmosphere to the sea ice, i.e., when the Arctic water/ice actually loses energy to the atmospheric layers above and to space, and when the temperature at the surface is way below the freezing point, then the water should freeze to a smaller area extend? And the effect should be larger in magnitude than the effect in summer, when you have more energy available to melt the ice? How so?
When the energy balance at the surface becomes negative and the water temperature drops to the freezing point, the water will freeze everywhere where those conditions are fulfilled. And when the temperature in winter is 250 K instead of 245 K due to greenhouse gas warming, the ice still remains frozen. It’s not starting to melt. The effect in winter is, even though the area that gets covered with sea ice hasn’t changed much, that the average maximum thickness of the sea ice that is reached decreases with time, since the area where the ice fully melts during the ice melting season increases with time.
@David Ball – On the subject of a causal chain, I was referring to your repost of a link to Dr Tim Ball’s page. That page made the claim that changes in Arctic sea ice could be attributed to winds, such as the Polar Front associated winds.
The point I was trying to make was that there is a difference between saying “winds drive ice” and saying “winds drive changes in ice”. The first statement might be a valid generalisation of the system, but the second is not. “Changes in winds drive changes in ice” is also a fine statement and there might well be a study that attributes some percent the change in ice to variations in winds. But the underlying trend in ice – is there a matching underlying trend in winds? Are they getting stronger, moving closer to the pole?
Again, we might find that there is indeed a trend in Arctic related winds, though I don’t have a citation at hand. But that is not an explanation. We’ve just shifted the question from “What is causing the trend in sea ice” to “What is causing the trend in Arctic winds?” That is what I meant by stepping back along the causal chain.
Not that I want to get all philosophical about this, but it is a good example of the difference between proximate and ultimate causes. Polar winds makes a good proximate cause, but the ultimate cause is anthropogenic GHGs heating the atmosphere globally, with the effect of shifting circulation belts poleward.
@DavidMHoffer – A partial response to Steve Mosher’s claim that
More open water will have two effects that will create more “storms like this”
– more heat to draw out of the water to power the storm
– longer fetch for the winds over open water, creating larger waves. These waves will be able to break more ice, and thicker ice, than smaller waves.
I’m not sure that movement to warmer waters will be necessary. There was plenty of in situ melting this year.
@Ron C. – I was actually referring to the 30-year average 1979-2008, which includes the previous record low year of 2007. Even against that more cautious standard, we have the results of the “experiences will tell us” that you suggested – not a recovery towards the long term average behavior of the system.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 26, 2012 at 2:24 am
fretslider says:
September 24, 2012 at 2:14 pm
“USS Skate (SSN-578) made submarine history on 11 August 1958 when it became the first submarine to surface at the North Pole.”
This has been hashed over here before, the USS Skate was the first submarine to surface at the North Pole on 17 March 1959. It did so by locating a region of thinner ice and using its reinforced sail to break through the ice.
Get with it Phil – http://www.navalhistory.org/2011/08/11/uss-skate-ssn-578-becomes-the-first-submarine-to-surface-at-the-north-pole
David Ball says:
September 25, 2012 at 5:07 pm
Phil. says:
September 25, 2012 at 4:17 pm
Really Phil? A handfull (only 57 vessels have actually transited the NW passage) of small yachts is routine ?
The citation you gave said that there were 126 by 2006 but only 6 in one season, as your citations show as many as 17 are making the crossing each year now, most in one season.
As I said such crossings (i.e. single season) are now routine
You gave the distinct impression that it is clear sailing with no distinction between commercial and private vessels.
No in reference to the first crossing in a single season by the St Roch I said that ‘such crossings are now routine’. A dozen or more every year meets the definition of routine.
Clearly it is NOT routine, and I don’t care if your feelings are hurt. I stand by my assertion.
Clearly you have difficulty with english comprehension, your ‘assertion’ was that “If you do not provide evidence for this (without icebreakers), I am calling you a liar.” Well I have!
David Ball says:
September 25, 2012 at 5:12 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/11/nw-passage-not-so-busy-after-all/
I know Phil. does not consider WUWT? a reliable source, but here you go.
That Post by Robert Phelan was certainly not a reliable source, as several posters said you don’t measure how many ships are transiting the NW Passage by counting ships doing so when it is closed by ice!
David Ball says:
September 25, 2012 at 5:22 pm
I also posit that these transits are increasing in recent times NOT due to less ice, but technological advances in vessel capability, AND an increase in the number of people attempting the journey.
Of course it’s due to less ice, very few were trying when the passage was blocked every year. Once it became clear that the ice was clearing every year and that it was possible to make the transit in a single season more yachtsmen tried to do so.
Phil. wants you to believe it is due to agw.
No I don’t believe that I ever used those words, it’s due to less ice particularly in the NW Passage. See the figure below for the ice coverage at this time of year:
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/CVCHDCTWA/20120917180000_CVCHDCTWA_0006658378.gif
This year most of the ice is north of the NW Passage:
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/WIS56CT/20120917180000_WIS56CT_0006658289.gif
Phil. says:
September 26, 2012 at 9:50 am
“This has been hashed over here before, the USS Skate was the first submarine to surface at the North Pole on 17 March 1959. It did so by locating a region of thinner ice and using its reinforced sail to break through the ice.”
Well that is not when that photo was taken as the Sun had not risen above the horizon at the Pole at all at that time of the year.
I gave the date, why is this ‘Phil’ trying to twist it? Oh I know…. doesn’t suit his script.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 26, 2012 at 10:39 am
Phil. says:
September 26, 2012 at 9:50 am
“This has been hashed over here before, the USS Skate was the first submarine to surface at the North Pole on 17 March 1959. It did so by locating a region of thinner ice and using its reinforced sail to break through the ice.”
Well that is not when that photo was taken as the Sun had not risen above the horizon at the Pole at all at that time of the year.
In which case the photo you are referring to was not taken at the time of the first surfacing at the Pole but at another time and place. At the first event in March 1959 it was dark and the crew held flares to light the scene as they scattered the ashes of Sir Hubert Wilkins at the Pole. There are multiple photos of the Skate surfaced in the Arctic, the only ones which can be reliably attributed to the first polar surfacing include the service for Wilkins.
http://library.osu.edu/projects/under-the-north-pole/images/wilkins35_5_4.jpg
For crying out loud….
1958 Newsreel: USS Skate, Nuclear Sub, Is First to Surface at North Pole – https://archives.nbclearn.com/portal/site/k-12/browse/?cuecard=41751
For the record….
1958 Newsreel: USS Skate, Nuclear Sub, Is First to Surface at North Pole
Source: NBC News
Creator: Ed Herlihy
Event Date: 07/30/1958
Air/Publish Date: 07/30/1958
Resource Type: Video Newsreel
Copyright: n/a
Copyright Date: 1959
Friends:
Silver Ralph says at September 25, 2012 at 9:28 am:
Yes! Precisely so.
None of the predictions of climate alarmists have come to pass; none, not any, not one of them.
The nearest thing they have is that the AGW-hypothesis predicts polar temperatures would rise most and fastest in response to increased atmospheric GHG concentrations and Arctic ice loss could be claimed to be an indication of that prediction being right. BUT this claim would only be true if Antarctic ice were also declining, and it is not. Furthermore, Arctic and Antarctic temperatures have not demonstrated the predicted enhanced warming and rates of warming.
So, the alarmists shout about Arctic ice as a smokescreen to hide the fact that polar ice is not declining (because Antarctic ice is increasing) and polar temperatures are not rising rapidly in accordance with the predictions.
There really is nothing to see here (except local weather).
Richard
Jan P Perlwitz:
At September 26, 2012 at 7:41 am you write:
You have had that stupidity refuted on WUWT before. I will refute it again in case there are any onlookers who may be misled by it.
Warming consists of an increase in temperature.
Cooling consists of a decrease in temperature.
If there has been no increase in global temperature over the last 12 years (or the last year, or last week, or since last Tuesday) then there is no global warming over the stated period. Whatever your delusions tell you does not change that fact. And reasons for that fact can be debated, but those reasons don’t change it, either.
Richard
fretslider says:
September 26, 2012 at 12:38 pm
For crying out loud….
1958 Newsreel: USS Skate, Nuclear Sub, Is First to Surface at North Pole – https://archives.nbclearn.com/portal/site/k-12/browse/?cuecard=41751
The date on your video is incorrect, it should be 1959 not 58. Several pieces of evidence prove this: firstly 16 secs in the commentator refers to ‘last summer’s voyages under the ice by Skate and Nautilus’, it’s well documented that those voyages took place in 1958 so the movie must have been made after 1958! Secondly they refer to the service for Wilkins at the Pole on the occasion of the first surfacing there on the current mission, since Wilkins died in Nov 1958 the movie can’t have been made on the date you claim! Most likely it was made 7/30/1959.
Phil
Who’s the denier now!!!
The NBC newsreel was 30/07//1958 (UK date format)
When you’re in a hole, mate, best stop digging.
fretslider says:
September 26, 2012 at 11:41 am
I gave the date, why is this ‘Phil’ trying to twist it? Oh I know…. doesn’t suit his script.
In the interests of accuracy, I believe the account made by the commander of the Skate, James Calvert, who states that the first surfacing at the Pole was through ice on 17th March 1959. Your date is wrong, not least because it would mean scattering the ashes of a man 6 months before he died!
“Your date is wrong,”
Tell it to NBC, Phil!
Phil. says:
September 26, 2012 at 10:23 am
All the boats that Phil. listed are keel-less. Why would that be Phil.?
@Phil. at 11:42 am
Whether or not the Skate surfaced exactly at the pole or not in the summer of 1958 is immaterial to the point that there was more open water and ice melt that summer due to a strong negative NAO. While John Daly suggested, from looking at trends in ice loss rather than individual seasons, that a positive NAO was responsible.
FWIW this article says the Aug 11 1958 surfacing was “near” the pole:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/us/16calvert.html?_r=0
You could buy the book for $3: http://www.ebay.com/ctg/Surface-Pole-Extraordinary-Voyages-USS-Skate-James-F-Calvert-1996-Paperback-/1083148
Phil. says: September 26, 2012 at 11:42 am
Ulric Lyons says:September 26, 2012 at 10:39 am
Phil. says:September 26, 2012 at 9:50 am
“This has been hashed over here before, the USS Skate was the first submarine to surface at the North Pole on 17 March 1959. It did so by locating a region of thinner ice and using its reinforced sail to break through the ice.”
Well that is not when that photo was taken as the Sun had not risen above the horizon at the Pole at all at that time of the year.
In which case the photo you are referring to was not taken at the time of the first surfacing at the Pole but at another time and place.
I can’t recall the term at the moment, but celestial objects do appear when they are as much as ten degrees below the horizon. The apparent diameter of the sun is about .5° of arc. The declination change on the ecliptic from March 17th to the 21st is tiny. I could be wrong, but would guess that it would be full light if not direct sun by March 17.
fretslider says:
September 27, 2012 at 12:02 am
Phil
Who’s the denier now!!!
Isn’t this word banned here?
The NBC newsreel was 30/07//1958 (UK date format)
When you’re in a hole, mate, best stop digging.
Good advice, you should take it! By claiming that that date is correct you’re asserting that Sir Hubert Wilkins’ memorial service took place before he died! (30 Nov 1958)
And yes I will tell NBC that they have made a mistake.
Phil states: “By claiming that that date is correct you’re asserting that Sir Hubert Wilkins’ memorial service took place before he died!”
There are two mentions of ashes here and both were by, er, Phil.
I never claimed anything of the sort. I only mentioned the date the Skate surfaced first at the pole. Do feel free to prove me wrong, though.
David Ball says:
September 26, 2012 at 3:50 pm
Phil. says:
September 26, 2012 at 10:23 am
All the boats that Phil. listed are keel-less. Why would that be Phil.?
Were that true it would just mean that a shallow draft is a good choice for sailing in the shallow waters of the NW Passage. Of course it isn’t true, for example:
http://www.fleuraustrale.com/plan-of-the-boat.html
Steve Keohane says:
September 27, 2012 at 8:13 am
Phil. says: September 26, 2012 at 11:42 am
Ulric Lyons says:September 26, 2012 at 10:39 am
Phil. says:September 26, 2012 at 9:50 am
“This has been hashed over here before, the USS Skate was the first submarine to surface at the North Pole on 17 March 1959. It did so by locating a region of thinner ice and using its reinforced sail to break through the ice.”
Well that is not when that photo was taken as the Sun had not risen above the horizon at the Pole at all at that time of the year.
In which case the photo you are referring to was not taken at the time of the first surfacing at the Pole but at another time and place.
I can’t recall the term at the moment, but celestial objects do appear when they are as much as ten degrees below the horizon. The apparent diameter of the sun is about .5° of arc. The declination change on the ecliptic from March 17th to the 21st is tiny. I could be wrong, but would guess that it would be full light if not direct sun by March 17.
Well the commander of the Skate described the conditions as follows:
“It was almost dark, the sky was heavily overcast, and the 25kt wind was blowing the snow so heavily that visibility was cut down to 500 yards.”
“For illumination two sailors were holding railroad flares whose red light cast an eerie glow over the ice,”
Ulric Lyons says:
September 27, 2012 at 4:02 am
@Phil. at 11:42 am
Whether or not the Skate surfaced exactly at the pole or not in the summer of 1958 is immaterial to the point that there was more open water and ice melt that summer due to a strong negative NAO. While John Daly suggested, from looking at trends in ice loss rather than individual seasons, that a positive NAO was responsible.
More water and ice melt compared to when?
So you’re claiming that there was more open water due to a strong negative NAO whereas Daly says that it should be due to a positive NAO. Which is it or are you trying to have your cake and eat it?
Steve Keohane says:
September 27, 2012 at 8:13 am
“I could be wrong, but would guess that it would be full light if not direct sun by March 17.”
The photo of Wilkins funeral where they used flares for illumination suggests otherwise:
http://library.osu.edu/projects/under-the-north-pole/images/wilkins35_5_4.jpg
The Sun was about 1deg 40min below the horizon so it would have been twilight.
Phil says at 9:51 am:
“So you’re claiming that there was more open water [and ice melt] due to a strong negative NAO..”
Exactly.
fretslider says:
September 27, 2012 at 10:56 am
Phil states: “By claiming that that date is correct you’re asserting that Sir Hubert Wilkins’ memorial service took place before he died!”
There are two mentions of ashes here and both were by, er, Phil.
I never claimed anything of the sort. I only mentioned the date the Skate surfaced first at the pole. Do feel free to prove me wrong, though.
So you didn’t watch the video you linked to? The reference to the scattering of the ashes is in that video which is dated 5 months before Hubert died! So by claiming that the date of the video is 7/30/1958 that’s what you’re claiming. Consider yourself proved wrong.
I watched the preview. The important part is the date and the fact that NBC had access to DoD footage. Perhaps you are calling NBC News and Ed Herlihy liars, are you?
You haven’t yet refuted the NYT either. I’m sure you have an excellent conspiratorial (lol) explanation for that one.
From the NYTimes…
“At 9:47 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on Aug. 11, 1958, the 265-foot-long Skate — the third nuclear-powered submarine in the American fleet — poked through a break in the ice near the North Pole. Soon after, Admiral Calvert, then a commander, radioed the news to headquarters in New London, Conn. Seven months after its first voyage to the pole, the Skate sailed there again. In that 12-day, 3,090-mile voyage, it surfaced 10 times. This time the stop at the pole took on a sentimental character. On March 17, 1959, as the Skate floated between ice drifts, crew members fulfilled a wish of Sir Hubert Wilkins, a polar explorer in the early 20th century, who had died three months before. ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/us/16calvert.html?_r=0
NBC and the NYT obviously forgot to participate in the revision of the date!
Now I’ve mentioned ashes….
Ulric Lyons says:
September 27, 2012 at 10:54 am
Phil says at 9:51 am:
“So you’re claiming that there was more open water [and ice melt] due to a strong negative NAO..”
Exactly.
So you disagree with Daly?
What about the answer to my other question, more open water than when?
Phil. says:
September 27, 2012 at 12:00 pm
“So you disagree with Daly?”
I made that clear in the first instance, I’m just going by what I see in the data, it’s called progress.
Take for example 2006, it had low ice extent in Mar/Apr, but September had plenty, the complete opposite of Mar/Apr and Sept 2012: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png
The state of the NAO in those months explains all:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/norm.nao.monthly.b5001.current.ascii.table
“..more open water than when?”
Summers with +NAO of course.
Well Fretslider I watched all of the movie and the important part is that they mention Wilkins’ memorial service which as I’ve tried to tell you means that the date can’t be right! I’m not calling NBC liars just that they’ve made a typo.
It’s apretty blatant error according to what you say, Phil, but the NYT isn’t.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 27, 2012 at 3:48 pm
I should have included the AO in that:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/monthly.ao.index.b50.current.ascii.table
Here’s another good example, 2008:
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_ext.png
See how the ice flunks in April/May but recovers in the Autumn, spot the pattern in the NAO/AO in those months:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/norm.nao.monthly.b5001.current.ascii.table
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/monthly.ao.index.b50.current.ascii.table
And then see how the ice for all years since 2007 drops off fast from June to August, all these months are in negative NAO territory.
fretslider says:
“It’s apretty blatant error according to what you say, Phil, but the NYT isn’t.”
Please re-read the NYT article and note the use of the words “near” and “at”.
“near” is not “at”
Skate surfaced “near” the Pole in 1958.
Skate surfaced “at” the Pole in 1959.
Precision is important when discussing records for first to surface “at” the Pole.
That’s an epic fail on your part, Phil. Try again the weasel strategy doesn’t count.
fretslider says:
September 28, 2012 at 7:52 am
It’s apretty blatant error according to what you say, Phil, but the NYT isn’t.
Yes and you’ll be pleased to know that NBC has corrected the mistake.
Phil: Yes and you’ll be pleased to know that NBC has corrected the mistake.
The NYT still remains correct…..
But the question of Arctic ice coverage disappearing altogether is rather like Harold Camping’s blind faith in his doomsday predictions.
In November 1922, The Monthly Weather Review reported on unusually warm temperatures and rapid ice melt in the arctic. “So little ice has never been seen before.” In fact, scientific exploration that took place in August 1922, sailed in open water all the way to 81° 29 minutes North in ice free waters. This was the “farthest north ever reached with modern oceanographic apparatus.”
One crew member, James Hester, aboard the USS Skate said, “the Skate found open water both in the summer and following winter (1958 and 1959). We surfaced near the North Pole in the winter through thin ice less than 2 feet thick. We came up through a very large opening in 1958 that was 1/2 mile long and 200 yards wide. On both trips we were able to find open water. We were not able to surface through ice thicker than 3 feet.”
In 1947, Dr. Hans Ahlmann, a Swedish physicist, predicted the catastrophic loss of sea ice within a few years.
In 1969, The New York Times predicted the Arctic would be ice-free by 1970.
In 2008. Dr. Olav Orheim, head of the Norwegian International Polar Year Secretariat, said the Arctic would be ice-free by that same summer.
Other predictions suggested the demise of North Pole ice by 2010, 2011, and now 2013 and 2015, and so on.
There is still ice covering the arctic.
@Frestslider
Dear,
Our friend have written to me a couple of days ago, they have a surprise for you, just take a look
Later, gerjaison